"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Syriusly]

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

The intent was not to do what you said. It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it. It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment

The INTENT when it was written was quite clear. It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent. They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT. Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them. Typical Liberal traitor.

The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it. You're as bad as they are. You may even be one of them.

Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?

Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.

The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.

You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.

You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.

While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.

You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.

I can read and write which means I'm not illiterate and will put my three degrees above your GED anytime son.

The INTENT of the 14th is clear to anyone that isn't a Liberal and wants to misinterpret it.

I don't like because I don't like Liberal dickheads.

You should saddened traitor. It's one thing to misinterpret the intention of the 14th Amendment. It's traitorous to want to allow the ILLEGAL parents to stay because they broke the law by shitting out their little turd here.

Oh I think your three degrees from beautician college just aren't helping you much here.

You don't like our Constitution- specifically you don't like the 14th Amendment- the clear and specific language of the 14th Amendment.

You don't have the cajones to try to change it legally- so you just whine about how much everyone else misunderstands it.

Once again: You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution

 

[Conservative65]

The intent was not to do what you said. It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it. It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment

The INTENT when it was written was quite clear. It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent. They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT. Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them. Typical Liberal traitor.

The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it. You're as bad as they are. You may even be one of them.

Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?

Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.

The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.

You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.

You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.

While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.

You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.

I can read and write which means I'm not illiterate and will put my three degrees above your GED anytime son.

The INTENT of the 14th is clear to anyone that isn't a Liberal and wants to misinterpret it.

I don't like because I don't like Liberal dickheads.

You should saddened traitor. It's one thing to misinterpret the intention of the 14th Amendment. It's traitorous to want to allow the ILLEGAL parents to stay because they broke the law by shitting out their little turd here.

Oh I think your three degrees from beautician college just aren't helping you much here.

You don't like our Constitution- specifically you don't like the 14th Amendment- the clear and specific language of the 14th Amendment.

You don't have the cajones to try to change it legally- so you just whine about how much everyone else misunderstands it.

Once again: You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution

They're from private universities you would be wasting your time applying to because they would laugh if you wated the time sending yours in.

It's doesn't need to be changed. It needs to be applies based on the intent behind its writing and that intent was never meant to allow children of those illegally coming here citizenship.

 

[Conservative65]

Are YOU this stupid? Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.

Wrong again, "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier. Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction.. They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland. Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.

Clearly you are this stupid.

What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?

They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.

If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.

Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?

Interesting you bring up bank robbers. A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail. However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd called an anchor babyh while they were here. Then, you want to let the criminal stay.

See the difference between you and me is that I can tell the difference between a turd and a baby.

Oh and I can read the Constitution.

And actually believe in the Constitution.

Well frankly there are many differences- lets just say that I am nothing like you, but start with me not confusing turds with babies like you do.

Apparently, you can't. Any baby born to an illegal that came here against the law then gets to stay is a turd that looks like a baby.

Yeah....must be a particularly Conservative mental issue that can't distinguish between a turd and a baby.

Sad.

The child of an illegal that came here to have the baby is a turd.

 

[Flopper]

If we eliminate the simple citizenship by birth rule we are left with derivative citizenship; that is citizenship by blood. I suspect that very few people who advocate abolishing citizenship by birth have really considered what that will mean.

If birthright citizenship is eliminated, those born in the United States will lose their access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they will find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally complex US rules for citizenship by blood. Proof of citizenship can mean inquires about grandparents as well as parents, about marriage dates and birth dates of ancestors, and about the time that one's parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one's birth. This would certainly lead to a national citizenship registry and national identify cards. We would be creating a huge costly intrusive government bureaucracy and to what purpose?

You're making a mountain out of a molehill here. One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship. The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods. It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.

Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that. You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship. And what might that proof be? Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.

Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status. And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.

WTH are you talking about? Of course a birth certificate would be proof of citizenship. Are you nuts? No one is advocating for changing birthright citizenship so that it is retroactive. Once the new law is in place then from that point forward at least one parent would have to be a citizen or legal resident. There is no reason whatsoever that a parent or legal resident couldn't provide proof of their right to be in this country You're grasping at straws now.

Changing birthright citizenship would indeed deter illegal immigration along with employer sanctions via e-verify. That would cut off any means of support here. Just what is your agenda in all of this?

There is no hard data that shows that abandoning birthright citizenship would reduce the amount of illegal immigration. While opponents of birthright citizenship seem to assume without facts that their rule will do some good, we do have a pretty good idea what bad things will happen if we eliminate the birthright citizenship rule:

First, we will have thousands of children born every year who have no citizenship. To cite just one group, under the pending congressional legislation, children of asylees and refugees will have no citizenship. They will be left without a country, creating an underclass of "exploitable denizens." This is what has happened in countries—like France—that do not have birthright as a criteria for citizenship.

Second, the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost. Why not just take the money we'd use to adjudicate the citizenship status of 300 million Americans and use it to enforce immigration laws?

Third, eliminating birthright citizenship is un-American. This is our unique heritage, one that hundreds of thousands of soldiers—citizens and noncitizens—fought the Civil War to enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to have a pretty damn good reason to change it—one better than some frustration with the federal government's inability to enforce existing immigration law. Further, what we are really talking about here is
punishing children for something "bad" that their parents did—or maybe not even anything bad but just being from the wrong country. We have a clear, long-standing rule of citizenship law—one that is easy to understand and easy to administer.

Finally, changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right to have a country.

In sum, the policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship as a rule are very, very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it's not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright citizenship rule for one that will cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to solve our complex immigration problems.
http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/73.birthrightsummary.pdf

Despite all your tripe, please explain why the criminals that came here against the law and shit out these anchor baby turds get to stay. I don't care if it causes them hardships to send them back. Their first action coming here was a crime and now people like you want to reward them. It's a slap in the face to those like my family who came here under the laws.

I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question. Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.

• The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities. Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
• Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
• Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times. Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013. We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year. It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working. Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.

 

[Conservative65]

You're making a mountain out of a molehill here. One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship. The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods. It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.

Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that. You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship. And what might that proof be? Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.

Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status. And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.

WTH are you talking about? Of course a birth certificate would be proof of citizenship. Are you nuts? No one is advocating for changing birthright citizenship so that it is retroactive. Once the new law is in place then from that point forward at least one parent would have to be a citizen or legal resident. There is no reason whatsoever that a parent or legal resident couldn't provide proof of their right to be in this country You're grasping at straws now.

Changing birthright citizenship would indeed deter illegal immigration along with employer sanctions via e-verify. That would cut off any means of support here. Just what is your agenda in all of this?

There is no hard data that shows that abandoning birthright citizenship would reduce the amount of illegal immigration. While opponents of birthright citizenship seem to assume without facts that their rule will do some good, we do have a pretty good idea what bad things will happen if we eliminate the birthright citizenship rule:

First, we will have thousands of children born every year who have no citizenship. To cite just one group, under the pending congressional legislation, children of asylees and refugees will have no citizenship. They will be left without a country, creating an underclass of "exploitable denizens." This is what has happened in countries—like France—that do not have birthright as a criteria for citizenship.

Second, the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost. Why not just take the money we'd use to adjudicate the citizenship status of 300 million Americans and use it to enforce immigration laws?

Third, eliminating birthright citizenship is un-American. This is our unique heritage, one that hundreds of thousands of soldiers—citizens and noncitizens—fought the Civil War to enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to have a pretty damn good reason to change it—one better than some frustration with the federal government's inability to enforce existing immigration law. Further, what we are really talking about here is
punishing children for something "bad" that their parents did—or maybe not even anything bad but just being from the wrong country. We have a clear, long-standing rule of citizenship law—one that is easy to understand and easy to administer.

Finally, changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right to have a country.

In sum, the policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship as a rule are very, very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it's not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright citizenship rule for one that will cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to solve our complex immigration problems.
http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/73.birthrightsummary.pdf

Despite all your tripe, please explain why the criminals that came here against the law and shit out these anchor baby turds get to stay. I don't care if it causes them hardships to send them back. Their first action coming here was a crime and now people like you want to reward them. It's a slap in the face to those like my family who came here under the laws.

I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question. Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.

• The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities. Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
• Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
• Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times. Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013. We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year. It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working. Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.

The vast majority of Liberals don't want to see them deported. Those that want the laws applied want to see the assholes gone. You don't reward criminals.

So you are OK with them entering illegally?

Over the past 50 years we've spent trillions on the war on poverty yet poverty still exists and is widespread yet people like you want to continue handing leeches money.

The new approach on illegals is to put armed guards at the border and defend it from the invasion. The smart ones will learn and the stupid ones won't. Either way, they don't come.

 

[Oldglory1]

"Section 1. 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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

"Section 1. 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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

The intent was not to do what you said. It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it. It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment

The INTENT when it was written was quite clear. It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent. They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT. Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them. Typical Liberal traitor.

The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it. You're as bad as they are. You may even be one of them.

Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?

Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.

The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.

You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.

You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.

While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.

You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.

Yes, it is very clear that anchor babies are not deemed citizens of this country based on the wording of the 14th. Now who's the third grader? It saddens me to see people like you wanting our country being ran over by immigration lawbreakers and their anchors because you refuse to see the truth of the 14th and the writer's intent even when it is explained to you. No new amendment is needed to fix it.

 

[Oldglory1]

You're making a mountain out of a molehill here. One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship. The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods. It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.

Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that. You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship. And what might that proof be? Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.

Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status. And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.

WTH are you talking about? Of course a birth certificate would be proof of citizenship. Are you nuts? No one is advocating for changing birthright citizenship so that it is retroactive. Once the new law is in place then from that point forward at least one parent would have to be a citizen or legal resident. There is no reason whatsoever that a parent or legal resident couldn't provide proof of their right to be in this country You're grasping at straws now.

Changing birthright citizenship would indeed deter illegal immigration along with employer sanctions via e-verify. That would cut off any means of support here. Just what is your agenda in all of this?

There is no hard data that shows that abandoning birthright citizenship would reduce the amount of illegal immigration. While opponents of birthright citizenship seem to assume without facts that their rule will do some good, we do have a pretty good idea what bad things will happen if we eliminate the birthright citizenship rule:

First, we will have thousands of children born every year who have no citizenship. To cite just one group, under the pending congressional legislation, children of asylees and refugees will have no citizenship. They will be left without a country, creating an underclass of "exploitable denizens." This is what has happened in countries—like France—that do not have birthright as a criteria for citizenship.

Second, the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost. Why not just take the money we'd use to adjudicate the citizenship status of 300 million Americans and use it to enforce immigration laws?

Third, eliminating birthright citizenship is un-American. This is our unique heritage, one that hundreds of thousands of soldiers—citizens and noncitizens—fought the Civil War to enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to have a pretty damn good reason to change it—one better than some frustration with the federal government's inability to enforce existing immigration law. Further, what we are really talking about here is
punishing children for something "bad" that their parents did—or maybe not even anything bad but just being from the wrong country. We have a clear, long-standing rule of citizenship law—one that is easy to understand and easy to administer.

Finally, changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right to have a country.

In sum, the policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship as a rule are very, very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it's not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright citizenship rule for one that will cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to solve our complex immigration problems.
http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/73.birthrightsummary.pdf

Despite all your tripe, please explain why the criminals that came here against the law and shit out these anchor baby turds get to stay. I don't care if it causes them hardships to send them back. Their first action coming here was a crime and now people like you want to reward them. It's a slap in the face to those like my family who came here under the laws.

I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question. Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.

• The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities. Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
• Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
• Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times. Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013. We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year. It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working. Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.

Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here. The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable. Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.

Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here. The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick. But then you obviously want them here.

 

[Syriusly]

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment

The INTENT when it was written was quite clear. It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent. They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT. Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them. Typical Liberal traitor.

The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it. You're as bad as they are. You may even be one of them.

Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?

Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.

The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.

You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.

You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.

While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.

You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.

I can read and write which means I'm not illiterate and will put my three degrees above your GED anytime son.

The INTENT of the 14th is clear to anyone that isn't a Liberal and wants to misinterpret it.

I don't like because I don't like Liberal dickheads.

You should saddened traitor. It's one thing to misinterpret the intention of the 14th Amendment. It's traitorous to want to allow the ILLEGAL parents to stay because they broke the law by shitting out their little turd here.

Oh I think your three degrees from beautician college just aren't helping you much here.

You don't like our Constitution- specifically you don't like the 14th Amendment- the clear and specific language of the 14th Amendment.

You don't have the cajones to try to change it legally- so you just whine about how much everyone else misunderstands it.

Once again: You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution

They're from private universities you would be wasting your time applying to because they would laugh if you wated the time sending yours in.

It's doesn't need to be changed. It needs to be applies based on the intent behind its writing and that intent was never meant to allow children of those illegally coming here citizenship.

You should get a refund from your beautician college.

The language of the 14th Amendment is clear.

You want the courts to ignore the clear language and agree with your interpretation of intent.

 

[Syriusly]

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

The intent was not to do what you said. It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it. It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment

The INTENT when it was written was quite clear. It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent. They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT. Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them. Typical Liberal traitor.

The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it. You're as bad as they are. You may even be one of them.

Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?

Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.

The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.

You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.

You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.

While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.

You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.

Yes, it is very clear that anchor babies are not deemed citizens of this country based on the wording of the 14th..

Well lets look at it again- we can break it down.

The sentence in question:

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.


All persons born or naturalized in the United States,

Any disagreement on that part? or this part:

are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

This I believe is where you claim otherwise.

What is 'jurisdiction'?

1
the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
2
a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate

b : the power or right to exercise authority : control
3
: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised

So how are children born in the United States of foreign parents- not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Within the United States, the United States has the right to apply and interpret the laws- not any foreign country. The United States has sole sovereign power within the United States.

So how exactly are these children not within or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

 

[Conservative65]

The intent was not to do what you said. It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it. It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment

The INTENT when it was written was quite clear. It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent. They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT. Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them. Typical Liberal traitor.

The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it. You're as bad as they are. You may even be one of them.

Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?

Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.

The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.

You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.

You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.

While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.

You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.

Yes, it is very clear that anchor babies are not deemed citizens of this country based on the wording of the 14th..

Well lets look at it again- we can break it down.

The sentence in question:

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.


All persons born or naturalized in the United States,

Any disagreement on that part? or this part:

are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

This I believe is where you claim otherwise.

What is 'jurisdiction'?

1
the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
2
a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate

b : the power or right to exercise authority : control
3
: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised

So how are children born in the United States of foreign parents- not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Within the United States, the United States has the right to apply and interpret the laws- not any foreign country. The United States has sole sovereign power within the United States.

So how exactly are these children not within or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

You keep missing the part of ORIGINAL INTENT. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I know. There were very few, if any, limits on immigration in 1868 when the 14th was passed. That means for you idiots, that there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant like exists today. The current and misused view of the 14th Amendment is fairly new and is the unintended consequence of a a bunch of bleeding heart Liberals, including moderate ones, as a Liberal is still a Liberal despite the degree of worthlessness they have the more left they get. The term anchor baby is something that describes how the baby born here as a sole result of a criminal act is given citizenship and pulls the mother here despite the criminal having come here illegally.

Supreme Court decisions written in 1884 (Slaughterhouse Cases and Elks v. Wilkins) supported that the status of the parents determined the citizenship of the child.

When you want to talk about jurisdiction, apply it as it was intended not the way you want it applied. Those that wrote the Amendment believed as I do not as you bleeding hearts do yet you think what you say it means it how it should be applied. I'll the take the interpretation of those that wrote it over someone like you. That you want it to mean something different doesn't take away what it was truly designed to do and it was never designed to be used like you think it should.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, though, let the anchor baby stay but ship the ILLEGAL parents back. If you want to go by what the law says, that's what happens to illegals. I don't care if they ever see that child again.

 

[Conservative65]

The INTENT when it was written was quite clear. It's traitors like you that have gone beyond that intent. They didn't need to write it differently especially when they expressed the intent of what it MEANT. Interesting how you take something not intended a certain way by those that wrote it then blame them. Typical Liberal traitor.

The way to change it is to apply it using ORIGINAL INTENT and letting the little turds squirted out by a bunch of piece of shit illegals isn't it. You're as bad as they are. You may even be one of them.

Seriously- exactly what state produces illiterate, uneducated pseudo-conservatives like yourself?

Clearly you have no idea what the word 'traitor' even means- even though it is spelled out in the constitution.

The language of the 14th Amendment is very clear to anyone who has the reading comprehension higher than a third grader.

You just don't like what the 14th Amendment says, or anyone who disagrees with you.

You don't even seem to be aware that babies actually come out of a different orifice than excrement.

While this level of Conservative attempt at persuasion doesn't really surprise me, it does sadden me.

You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution.

I can read and write which means I'm not illiterate and will put my three degrees above your GED anytime son.

The INTENT of the 14th is clear to anyone that isn't a Liberal and wants to misinterpret it.

I don't like because I don't like Liberal dickheads.

You should saddened traitor. It's one thing to misinterpret the intention of the 14th Amendment. It's traitorous to want to allow the ILLEGAL parents to stay because they broke the law by shitting out their little turd here.

Oh I think your three degrees from beautician college just aren't helping you much here.

You don't like our Constitution- specifically you don't like the 14th Amendment- the clear and specific language of the 14th Amendment.

You don't have the cajones to try to change it legally- so you just whine about how much everyone else misunderstands it.

Once again: You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution

They're from private universities you would be wasting your time applying to because they would laugh if you wated the time sending yours in.

It's doesn't need to be changed. It needs to be applies based on the intent behind its writing and that intent was never meant to allow children of those illegally coming here citizenship.

You should get a refund from your beautician college.

The language of the 14th Amendment is clear.

You want the courts to ignore the clear language and agree with your interpretation of intent.

It's not my interpretation of intent. It's those that wrote the Amendment. I want the courts to apply it in the way those that wrote it intended it to be applied. You can deny what I say is true but all it takes it looking it up to see the purpose of the 14th and giving the offspring of criminal citizenship isn't it son.

 

[Dot Com]

"Section 1. 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."

I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States. The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.

I agree.

The legislators were smart but this is not what they intended.

 

[Conservative65]

"Section 1. 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."

I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States. The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.

I agree.

The legislators were smart but this is not what they intended.

There were two Supreme Court Cin 1884 that deal with this. The SlaughterHouse Cases and Elks v. Wilkins. Both basically stated that he citizenship of the child was based on that of the parents. It wasn't until the mid 1960s that the anchor baby concept misinterpreted it. Even those that wrote it indicated it wasn't designed to give citizenship to those born here is their parents were foreign.

 

[Conservative65]

"Section 1. 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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

If we eliminate the simple citizenship by birth rule we are left with derivative citizenship; that is citizenship by blood. I suspect that very few people who advocate abolishing citizenship by birth have really considered what that will mean.

If birthright citizenship is eliminated, those born in the United States will lose their access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they will find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally complex US rules for citizenship by blood. Proof of citizenship can mean inquires about grandparents as well as parents, about marriage dates and birth dates of ancestors, and about the time that one's parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one's birth. This would certainly lead to a national citizenship registry and national identify cards. We would be creating a huge costly intrusive government bureaucracy and to what purpose?

You're making a mountain out of a molehill here. One would only need to go back to their citizen parents or legal resident to gain birthright citizenship. The purpose is to end this scam on granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. It would put some honor back in to our citizenship and save us billions if dollars supporting their broods. It shouldn't be given away like candy to criminals who snubbed their noses at our immigration laws and just happen to give birth here beginning with their violation of our country's borders.

Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that. You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship. And what might that proof be? Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.

Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status. And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.

Illegal immigration will stop when we place armed guards at the border and shoot the illegal invaders. It will happen one of two way. The smart ones will learn not to try and the idiots won't make it in.

 

[Dot Com]

it is odd how this is the only country I know that doesn't immediately deport foreigners once discovered.

 

[80zephyr]

No, it's not about me but what the writer's intent was. Yes, the language is very clear that one has to be subject to our full jurisdiction in order to gain birthright citizenship. I already mentioned the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction. No qualifier would have been necessary if anyone born on our soil was deemed a citizen. You actually think that the children of diplomats would be excluded but not children of illegal aliens? Are you really this stupid? It is because in both cases the children's parents were subject to a foreign country not ours.

Are you really that stupid?

A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.

Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.

The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.

For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.

Are YOU this stupid? Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.

Wrong again, "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier. Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction.. They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland. Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.

Clearly you are this stupid.

What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?

They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.

If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.

Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?

Interesting you bring up bank robbers. A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail. However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd called an anchor babyh while they were here. Then, you want to let the criminal stay.

See the difference between you and me is that I can tell the difference between a turd and a baby.

Oh and I can read the Constitution.

And actually believe in the Constitution.

Well frankly there are many differences- lets just say that I am nothing like you, but start with me not confusing turds with babies like you do.

During the original congressional debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[40]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers

Hmm. Maybe a little history lesson will help with your constitutional interpretation?

Mark

 

[Flopper]

Going from birthright to derivative citizenship is not a molehill but a mountain and a big one at that. You say all that would be needed is to go back to the parents of the child for proof of their citizenship. And what might that proof be? Once you change the law, our birth certificates would not be proof of citizenship.

Opponents of birthright citizenship assume without any data that illegal immigration will lessen or even stop if birthright citizenship is eliminated. Although there may be some people who might be deterred from coming to the US if birthright citizenship is eliminated, instead of reducing the number of illegal migrants within our borders, changing the current rule will turn even more people into illegal residents, because fewer people will be able to gain legal status. And that's not just children of illegal immigrants but any child born in the US whose parent(s) does not provide the necessary proof of their citizenship.

WTH are you talking about? Of course a birth certificate would be proof of citizenship. Are you nuts? No one is advocating for changing birthright citizenship so that it is retroactive. Once the new law is in place then from that point forward at least one parent would have to be a citizen or legal resident. There is no reason whatsoever that a parent or legal resident couldn't provide proof of their right to be in this country You're grasping at straws now.

Changing birthright citizenship would indeed deter illegal immigration along with employer sanctions via e-verify. That would cut off any means of support here. Just what is your agenda in all of this?

There is no hard data that shows that abandoning birthright citizenship would reduce the amount of illegal immigration. While opponents of birthright citizenship seem to assume without facts that their rule will do some good, we do have a pretty good idea what bad things will happen if we eliminate the birthright citizenship rule:

First, we will have thousands of children born every year who have no citizenship. To cite just one group, under the pending congressional legislation, children of asylees and refugees will have no citizenship. They will be left without a country, creating an underclass of "exploitable denizens." This is what has happened in countries—like France—that do not have birthright as a criteria for citizenship.

Second, the benefit does not seem to outweigh the cost. Why not just take the money we'd use to adjudicate the citizenship status of 300 million Americans and use it to enforce immigration laws?

Third, eliminating birthright citizenship is un-American. This is our unique heritage, one that hundreds of thousands of soldiers—citizens and noncitizens—fought the Civil War to enforce. Birthright citizenship has been the rule since the dawn of the Republic, and we ought to have a pretty damn good reason to change it—one better than some frustration with the federal government's inability to enforce existing immigration law. Further, what we are really talking about here is
punishing children for something "bad" that their parents did—or maybe not even anything bad but just being from the wrong country. We have a clear, long-standing rule of citizenship law—one that is easy to understand and easy to administer.

Finally, changing our rule would cause us to contribute heavily to the current global population of stateless people. And we as a nation have professed that people have a human right to have a country.

In sum, the policy arguments in favor of retaining birthright citizenship as a rule are very, very strong. The policy arguments against it are weak. Even if we believe that it is possible to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment differently than we have been interpreting it for more than a hundred years, it's not clear why we would want to do so. Trading an easy and egalitarian birthright citizenship rule for one that will cause hardship to millions of Americans is not a smart way to solve our complex immigration problems.
http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/73.birthrightsummary.pdf

Despite all your tripe, please explain why the criminals that came here against the law and shit out these anchor baby turds get to stay. I don't care if it causes them hardships to send them back. Their first action coming here was a crime and now people like you want to reward them. It's a slap in the face to those like my family who came here under the laws.

I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question. Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.

• The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities. Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
• Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
• Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times. Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013. We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year. It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working. Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.

Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here. The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable. Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.

Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here. The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick. But then you obviously want them here.

Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.

The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans. The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits. Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property. The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.

Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at. Others have become leaders both nationally and locally. Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins. Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants. Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....

 

[Flopper]

it is odd how this is the only country I know that doesn't immediately deport foreigners once discovered.

Nope. Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. All have illegal immigration and illegals living in the country, Their problem is not as bad as US but their laws are bit more realistic.

Mexico has a big illegal immigration problem with over 200,000 illegal crossing a year and a low deportation rate. Some end up in the US but most remain in Mexico.

 

[Spare_change]

Actually, a significant number of constitutional scholars agree that the 'anchor babies' interpretation of the 14th Amendment is an error. There, simply, has been no lawsuit to challenge it.

There opinion is based on the misinterpretation of the "... , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..." phrase. Many would make the argument that the illegal immigrant parent is, in fact, subject to the jurisdiction of his/her home country, and that, because the child is not emancipated, they are also subject to the home country.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

 

[Syriusly]

Are you really that stupid?

A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.

Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.

The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.

For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.

Are YOU this stupid? Everyone on our soil is subject to our laws but that doesn't mean they are under our full jurisdiction.

Wrong again, "and" subject to our jurisdiction is the qualifier. Children born of illegal a aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction.. They are subject to the same one as their parent's homeland. Their parents hold allegience to another country just as diplomats do.

Clearly you are this stupid.

What part of the jurisdiction do you imagine that they are not subject to?

They are subject to the laws of the United States while they are in the United States.

If they rob a bank, they are breaking the same law as an American citizen and suffer the same legal penalties.

Go ahead- tell me what part of U.S. jurisidiction that they are not part of while they are in the United States?

Interesting you bring up bank robbers. A citizen that robs a bank because he/she is trying to better their family goes to jail. However, you are willing to give a pass to the illegal piece of shit that came here for the same reason then shit out a turd called an anchor babyh while they were here. Then, you want to let the criminal stay.

See the difference between you and me is that I can tell the difference between a turd and a baby.

Oh and I can read the Constitution.

And actually believe in the Constitution.

Well frankly there are many differences- lets just say that I am nothing like you, but start with me not confusing turds with babies like you do.

During the original congressional debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[40]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers

Hmm. Maybe a little history lesson will help with your constitutional interpretation?

Mark

Actually, I mentioned Native Americans in an earlier post.

When the 14th Amendment was put in place the persons considered outside the jurisidiction of the United States included Native Americans born in 'tribal lands'(as opposed to native Americans who lived in 'America' and paid taxes, children of diplomats and children of invading Armies.

However, the law was changed so that now all native Americans are now under the full jurisdiction of the United States, and the only real children born in the United States that are not born citizens are children of diplomats.