"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Syriusly]

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 - Fourtee

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.

[URL='http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html']The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution[/URL]

Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:


Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted

that it was
impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that

[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.


So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

As the Supreme Court noted in Wong Kim Ark- the language is very clear:

Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was

impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

 

[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 - Fourtee

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

nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:


Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted

that it was
impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that

[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.


So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:

"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."

------------------------------------------

Let me ask you a simple question .... if we are to accept your carte blanche interpretation of the 14th Amendment, why doesn't the INS ask pregnancy status before issuing a tourist visa? Wouldn't it seem logical that the simplest route for someone wishing to come to the US would be to get pregnant, then come to the US, deliver an anchor baby legally, and avoid all the legal folderol?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DGS49 SAID:

"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."

Incorrect.

14th Amendment jurisprudence correctly acknowledges the inalienable rights that manifest as a consequence of our humanity, rights that can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Because our rights are inalienable, because they are a fundamental component of the human condition, when a person is born within the jurisdiction of the United States, government is compelled by the Constitution to recognize that person as a citizen and afford him his right to due process.

Moreover, the condition of one's parents is of no consequence when he is born a citizen in the United States, he cannot be subject to punitive measures – such as denying him his citizenship and right to due process – merely as a consequence of his parents' bad acts (Weber v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. (1972)).

The wisdom of the Framers of the 14th Amendment is abundantly clear, where the rights of citizens are safeguarded from the cruel and capricious whims of partisan politics, unelected bureaucrats and administrators, and those who exhibit unwarranted hostility toward racial and ethnic minorities. “Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clause[] of...the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight.” (Lawrence v. Texas (2003)); consequently we see in the Amendment not only the wisdom of its Framers, but their humility, their forbearance, and their determination to fulfill the promise of the Founding Generation to ordain a Republic whose citizens are in fact subject solely to the rule of law.

 

[Dekster]

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 think in school they said that babies born on boats are considered born on the soil of the nation where the boat is from under US law.

 

[Conservative65]

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

Perhaps you should read what those who WROTE the Amendment INTENDED for it to do. It damn sure wasn't to give children born here solely as a result of a criminal act citizenship. It's retards like you that want anyone and everyone coming here no matter what and no matter how.

 

[Conservative65]

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....

Illegals contribute something. They give traitors like you a reason to exist. I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore. You are worse than the illegals. It's no suprise they keep coming. They know traitors like you will overlook what they do. One problem with your list. You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens. If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .

 

[Unkotare]

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.

If that's your opinion, what have you done about it besides bitch and moan on the internet?

 

[80zephyr]

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....

Isn 't it funny that our own poor are a net drain on our economy but that the illegals, somehow, are not? While illegals can become productive members of our society, they won't, because most are undereducated and simply cannot afford to pay their own way.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Not the part you should have been looking at. Here is the part of the quote you should have focused on:

"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers

 

[80zephyr]

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

Perhaps you should read what those who WROTE the Amendment INTENDED for it to do. It damn sure wasn't to give children born here solely as a result of a criminal act citizenship. It's retards like you that want anyone and everyone coming here no matter what and no matter how.

What?? Maybe you should read my post again. It not only agrees with you, it cites the belief of the author of the citizenship clause to agree with you as well.

Mark

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Not the part you should have been looking at. Here is the part of the quote you should have focused on:

"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers

I read it just fine-

"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers"

Persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors- that is all part of one sentence- the foreigners- aliens- belong to the families of ambassadors- which is the only relevant remaining provision.

 

[Syriusly]

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 - Fourtee

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

nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:


Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted

that it was
impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that

[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.


So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:

"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."

------------------------------------------

Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.

What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.

The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.

But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Not the part you should have been looking at. Here is the part of the quote you should have focused on:

"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers

I read it just fine-

"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers"

Persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors- that is all part of one sentence- the foreigners- aliens- belong to the families of ambassadors- which is the only relevant remaining provision.

So, you agree that "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens," are not supposed to be anchor babies?

Mark

 

[Oldglory1]

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 - Fourtee

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

nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:


Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted

that it was
impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that

[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.


So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:

"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."

------------------------------------------

Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.

What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.

The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.

But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally. In the Wong case the parents were legally here.

A regular American can't change or re-interpret law. It is up to congress to do that. A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that. It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats). Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now? I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on. Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".

 

[Dekster]

People take the citizenship nonsense way too seriously.

 

[Oldglory1]

People take the citizenship nonsense way too seriously.

What's that suppose to mean? Foreigners here illegally are tapping into our welfare coffers thru their so-called citizens children and it is costing us billions not to mention that it makes a mockery out of our citizenship. They will grow up and vote for policies that are not in the best interests of our country. They will think that because their parents violated our immigration laws that lawlessness is ok.

 

[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 - Fourtee

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

nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:


Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted

that it was
impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that

[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.


So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:

"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."

------------------------------------------

Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.

What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.

The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.

But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally. In the Wong case the parents were legally here.

A regular American can't change or re-interpret law. It is up to congress to do that. A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that. It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats). Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now? I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on. Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".

Can you provide some info on this law? I'd be interested in supporting it ... depending, of course, on exactly what it says.

 

[Syriusly]

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 - Fourtee

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

nth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

Hardly a misinterpretation- the Supreme Court spelled it out very clearly in Wong Kim Ark, and as was noted in Plyer v. Doe:


Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649(1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted

that it was
impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that

[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.


So once again I issue the challenge- how is any child born in the United States not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:

"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."

------------------------------------------

Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.

What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.

The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.

But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally. In the Wong case the parents were legally here.

A regular American can't change or re-interpret law. It is up to congress to do that. A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that. It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats). Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now? I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on. Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".

Complaining about how the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment is indeed whining.

Note- the title of this thread- 'anchor babies- constitutional nonsense'- that is whining.

IF you are working to push an Amendment through to change definition from the 14th Amendment- then that would not be whining- that would be taking action.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Not the part you should have been looking at. Here is the part of the quote you should have focused on:

"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers

I read it just fine-

"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers"

Persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors- that is all part of one sentence- the foreigners- aliens- belong to the families of ambassadors- which is the only relevant remaining provision.

So, you agree that "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens," are not supposed to be anchor babies?

Mark

No one who is born in the United States who is born a foreigner, a alien, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers is an American citizen.

Anyone born in the United States who does not belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers- i.e. diplomats- is an American citizen.

Anchor baby is merely a term for an American citizen that other American citizens don't approve of.