"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Oldglory1]

There is no "their citizenship" as you call it, and they are not "citizen children". They are illegal aliens, just like their parents. And their parents simmigratin status of illegal can and is determined within hours of their capture, illegally crossing the Mexican border. It is also the status of criminal of having committed a crime, ranging from misdemeanor to felony, depending on the number of offenses.

How is a child born in the US an Illegal alien. An alien mean he came from some other country...How the hell is a child born on US soil be from some where else? That is laughable.

They aren't. If their parents are illegal aliens they just entitled to our citizenship by birth. They are citizens of their parent's country. Many countries require that at least one parent be a citizen of their country in order for their newborn to qualify. There are legal aliens and illegal aliens. Learn to know the difference.

 

[Unkotare]

If their parents are illegal aliens they just aren't entitled to our citizenship by birth. .

The law says otherwise, oldgloryhole.

 

[Oldglory1]

Actually a more lethal fence would solve the problem

You can't even pay for the fence there is now and you want a killer fence..??? It's like you're lost in a world all your own.

Who's "you"? A fence/wall would come out of all of our taxes. It would be money well spent compared to the billions of tax dollars we spend every year on illegal aliens. Not to mention the loss of jobs, resources, increased crime and uncontrolled population growth from illegal immigration. No killer fence is needed. Just erect the double layered wall that was approved but not funded by congress along the most porous parts of the border and the BP can take care of the rest. Will it cut back illegal immigration 100%? Of course not but certainly would put a huge dent in it.

 

[ImGoing2Heaven]

Or we can just have a minority hunting day, you know a day where its legal to get rid of the fence jumping scum of the third world.

 

[Oldglory1]

AMENDMENT XIV

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.

Protectionist mangled the above: there is no more qualifying language than this.

SCOTUS won't touch it, Congress can't touch it, only an Amendment can change it.

You left out the part about excluding foreigners, aliens, etc. "and" subject to the jurisdiction which is the qualifier. Neither their parents nor they are under our full jurisdiction . They are under the full jurisdiction of their own country. No one will touch it? That is merely your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.....we've all got one. It wouldn't even take an Amendment to change it because exclusion is already in the amendment. It just needs to be re-interpreted as the writer's intended it to be. Why wouldn't you want it re-interpreted or changed since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and it is costing us billions in tax dollars every year?

 

[ImGoing2Heaven]

Go home pakies!
Go home wetbacks!
Go home *******!
Jews too!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no "their citizenship" as you call it, and they are not "citizen children". They are illegal aliens, just like their parents. And their parents simmigratin status of illegal can and is determined within hours of their capture, illegally crossing the Mexican border. It is also the status of criminal of having committed a crime, ranging from misdemeanor to felony, depending on the number of offenses.

How is a child born in the US an Illegal alien. An alien mean he came from some other country...How the hell is a child born on US soil be from some where else? That is laughable.

They aren't. If their parents are illegal aliens they just entitled to our citizenship by birth. They are citizens of their parent's country. Many countries require that at least one parent be a citizen of their country in order for their newborn to qualify. There are legal aliens and illegal aliens. Learn to know the difference.

Actually there are legal immigrants, undocumented immigrants pending adjudication, and illegal immigrants, who are subject to deportation.

But the parents' immigration status is irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever on the citizenship rights of the newborn American citizen.

 

[ImGoing2Heaven]

They're not citizens, they're fence hoopers

 

[Unkotare]

Or we can just have a minority hunting day....

People as stupid as you are a minority as well, so...

 

[Unkotare]

That is merely your opinion...

It is the established law of the land, oldgloryhole.

 

[Unkotare]

They're not citizens, they're fence hoopers

They are, in fact, US citizens. More deserving of that status than you.

 

[Unkotare]

Go home pakies!
Go home wetbacks!
Go home *******!
Jews too!

Go home, you stupid son of a bitch.

 

[Flopper]

We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.

If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

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

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

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

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

FALSE!

Of course it's important what Howard meant when he authored the 14th amendment. What he meant is what the 14th amendment always has been > NO ANCHOR BABIES.

Far more important was what the congress meant when they approved the bill and the states that ratified. it.

 

[Flopper]

For those who need educating on this subject:

The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies

“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).

The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.

To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.

Absolutely false. The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so. It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.

Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.

Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly

Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.

If Howard's intent was to exclude the children of foreigners, then why did he move to amend Section One by adding the citizenship clause to read, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”? Surely he didn't believe the United States had no jurisdiction over these children.

14th Amendment Site

He didn't amend anything of Section one. He just wrote it as it is and INTENDED it as he stated >

"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Now stop trying to BS your way out of it.

Yet, we are left with what he actually put in the bill and what Congress and the states approved, "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." During the Senate debate, 3 senators including Senate Judiciary Chairman LymanTrumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats). Congress was well aware that the language in the bill would grant citizenship to these children. If their intention was otherwise they would have narrowed the scope of the citizenship clause which they didn't.

Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[protectionist]

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

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

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

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

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

FALSE!

Of course it's important what Howard meant when he authored the 14th amendment. What he meant is what the 14th amendment always has been > NO ANCHOR BABIES.

Far more important was what the congress meant when they approved the bill and the states that ratified. it.

They meant the same thing that Howard meant. They all heard what he said, and they were all in agreement together.

 

[protectionist]

“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).

The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.

To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.

Absolutely false. The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so. It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.

Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.

Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly

Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.

If Howard's intent was to exclude the children of foreigners, then why did he move to amend Section One by adding the citizenship clause to read, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”? Surely he didn't believe the United States had no jurisdiction over these children.

14th Amendment Site

He didn't amend anything of Section one. He just wrote it as it is and INTENDED it as he stated >

"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Now stop trying to BS your way out of it.

Yet, we are left with what he actually put in the bill and what Congress and the states approved, "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." During the Senate debate, 3 senators including Senate Judiciary Chairman LymanTrumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats). Congress was well aware that the language in the bill would grant citizenship to these children. If their intention was otherwise they would have narrowed the scope of the citizenship clause which they didn't.

Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which includes Howard's intent. Stop trying to wiggle out of it.

 

[protectionist]

They're not citizens, they're fence hoopers

They are, in fact, US citizens. More deserving of that status than you.

Anchor babies are not US citizens and never have been. Jacob Howard carries more weight than you do.

 

[protectionist]

If their parents are illegal aliens they just aren't entitled to our citizenship by birth. .

The law says otherwise, oldgloryhole.

No it doesn't, and it never has, since 1866. So says the author of the 14th amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

Absolutely false. The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so. It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.

Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> "[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.

Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly

Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.

If Howard's intent was to exclude the children of foreigners, then why did he move to amend Section One by adding the citizenship clause to read, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”? Surely he didn't believe the United States had no jurisdiction over these children.

14th Amendment Site

He didn't amend anything of Section one. He just wrote it as it is and INTENDED it as he stated >

"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Now stop trying to BS your way out of it.

Yet, we are left with what he actually put in the bill and what Congress and the states approved, "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." During the Senate debate, 3 senators including Senate Judiciary Chairman LymanTrumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats). Congress was well aware that the language in the bill would grant citizenship to these children. If their intention was otherwise they would have narrowed the scope of the citizenship clause which they didn't.

Citizenship Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Which includes Howard's intent. Stop trying to wiggle out of it.

Howard's intent is clearly the language of the 14th Amendment.

“all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”

Why would he use any language other than what he intended to use?

 

[Syriusly]

They're not citizens, they're fence hoopers

They are, in fact, US citizens. More deserving of that status than you.

Anchor babies are not US citizens and never have been. Jacob Howard carries more weight than you do.

All persons born in the United States are citizen's except the children of diplomats.

They get issued U.S. Passports- they vote- they even get elected.

Your interpretation of Howard's intent is legally irrelevant.