"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[BULLDOG]

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".

Congress can change the law, but it is up to the courts to interpret the law.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

As I already stated I have taken action by calling my congressman about the proposed legislation languishing outside of committee for two years now. I even tried to contact the writer of it but I am not in his district or state so it can't be done. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Action or not, discussing one's political views in a forum or anywhere else is not whining unless of course you are a typical liberal who wants to shut down the opposition, like YOU for instance! Ever heard of freedom of speech or is that just reserved for liberals?

You have every right to whine, but everybody else has the right to tell you how childish it is. By all means whine away.

 

[Oldglory1]

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 .

There's no need to list the failures. The failures make big news and there're all over the media. The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.

Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media. One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa. At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego. The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager. He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college. He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.

I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are. Deporting them is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it. So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.

We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic, not an ideological approach.

So according to you improving one's lot in life while diminishing the lives of the rightful citizens of this country and also doing so by breaking all sorts of laws is A-ok with you? My what a wonderful American YOU are! Where did you learn your code of ethics?

You forgot to mention the solution that would be in the best interests of the citizens of this country and that is to remove all of the incentives for them to remain here and continue to come here. And no, most Americans do not want them to remain here. Why would they when they need the jobs they are holding and rewarding lawbreakers never makes sense.

 

[Flopper]

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 .

There's no need to list the failures. The failures make big news and there're all over the media. The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.

Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media. One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa. At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego. The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager. He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college. He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.

I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are. Deporting them is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it. So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.

We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic not an ideological approach.

The pragmatic way is to cut off their source of income. We both know that unless we get serious with this group, there will be another 10 million to contend with a decade from now.

Mark

Agreed, and that's not going to happen unless we require that all employers verify legal status, and hold them accountable for violations.

When are we going to hold the criminals that come here illegally accountable for their violations?

ICE conducted a total of 368,644 deportations in 2013.

 

[Oldglory1]

... 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.

As I already stated I have taken action by calling my congressman about the proposed legislation languishing outside of committee for two years now. I even tried to contact the writer of it but I am not in his district or state so it can't be done. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Action or not, discussing one's political views in a forum or anywhere else is not whining unless of course you are a typical liberal who wants to shut down the opposition, like YOU for instance! Ever heard of freedom of speech or is that just reserved for liberals?

LOL.

Look- if you are actually trying to affect legislation for what you believe in- good for you. I do not call that 'whining' I call that taking action.

And I am not saying you are not free to whine about anything you feel like whining about- but like a 'typical' conservative- you just cry 'freedom of speech' when anyone is critical of what you post.

Freedom of speech(which doesn't even apply to these boards) is not freedom from criticism.

You can criticize my posts as much as you want- I won't whine about 'freedom of speech'.

And what are you doing other than whining about a difference of opinion from yours in here? Hypocrite! Don't want to read a difference of opinion then leave and don't let the door hit you in the a**. No one is forcing you to read the posts or to reply to them. I have heard plenty of so-called whining (by your lame description) from the left but then again I believe everyone has the right to express their opinion and not label it as whining.

 

[Oldglory1]

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

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

What does this clause mean to you: ";nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"? Think it through.

Illegal aliens nor their spawn are within the full jurisdiction of our country. just as diplomats aren't.

 

[BULLDOG]

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

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

What does this clause mean to you: ";nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"? Think it through.

Illegal aliens nor their spawn are within the full jurisdiction of our country. just as diplomats aren't.

Somebody needs to tell all those constitutional scholars that some anonymous guy on the internet says they are all wrong. I'm sure they will be happy to change their minds immediately.

 

[Oldglory1]

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 .

There's no need to list the failures. The failures make big news and there're all over the media. The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.

Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media. One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa. At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego. The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager. He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college. He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.

I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are. Deporting them is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it. So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.

We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic not an ideological approach.

The pragmatic way is to cut off their source of income. We both know that unless we get serious with this group, there will be another 10 million to contend with a decade from now.

Mark

Agreed, and that's not going to happen unless we require that all employers verify legal status, and hold them accountable for violations.

When are we going to hold the criminals that come here illegally accountable for their violations?

ICE conducted a total of 368,644 deportations in 2013.

It's a drop in the bucket compared to how many are here. Obama has stopped the deportation of all illegals unless they are "convicted" criminals.

 

[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
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.

Grow up ---- trying to have an intelligent discussion about a point is not 'whining' - if you don't want to discuss the issue, than don't --- but you don't get to try to stifle others from doing it.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

The author of the citizenship clause tends to disagree with you, but, what would he know, right?

Mark

From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.

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

Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats.

So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.

Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?

 

[Spare_change]

... 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.

As I already stated I have taken action by calling my congressman about the proposed legislation languishing outside of committee for two years now. I even tried to contact the writer of it but I am not in his district or state so it can't be done. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Action or not, discussing one's political views in a forum or anywhere else is not whining unless of course you are a typical liberal who wants to shut down the opposition, like YOU for instance! Ever heard of freedom of speech or is that just reserved for liberals?

LOL.

Look- if you are actually trying to affect legislation for what you believe in- good for you. I do not call that 'whining' I call that taking action.

And I am not saying you are not free to whine about anything you feel like whining about- but like a 'typical' conservative- you just cry 'freedom of speech' when anyone is critical of what you post.

Freedom of speech(which doesn't even apply to these boards) is not freedom from criticism.

You can criticize my posts as much as you want- I won't whine about 'freedom of speech'.

Actually, you ARE "... free to whine about anything you feel like whining about ..."

 

[Spare_change]

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

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

What does this clause mean to you: ";nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"? Think it through.

Illegal aliens nor their spawn are within the full jurisdiction of our country. just as diplomats aren't.

Somebody needs to tell all those constitutional scholars that some anonymous guy on the internet says they are all wrong. I'm sure they will be happy to change their minds immediately.

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

 

[BULLDOG]

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

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

What does this clause mean to you: ";nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"? Think it through.

Illegal aliens nor their spawn are within the full jurisdiction of our country. just as diplomats aren't.

Somebody needs to tell all those constitutional scholars that some anonymous guy on the internet says they are all wrong. I'm sure they will be happy to change their minds immediately.

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

It's your silly claim. Where is the link?

 

[Spare_change]

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

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

What does this clause mean to you: ";nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"? Think it through.

Illegal aliens nor their spawn are within the full jurisdiction of our country. just as diplomats aren't.

Somebody needs to tell all those constitutional scholars that some anonymous guy on the internet says they are all wrong. I'm sure they will be happy to change their minds immediately.

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

It's your silly claim. Where is the link?

I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend MY time educating YOU ... if you want to know, look it up.

 

[BULLDOG]

What does this clause mean to you: ";nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"? Think it through.

Illegal aliens nor their spawn are within the full jurisdiction of our country. just as diplomats aren't.

Somebody needs to tell all those constitutional scholars that some anonymous guy on the internet says they are all wrong. I'm sure they will be happy to change their minds immediately.

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

It's your silly claim. Where is the link?

I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend MY time educating YOU ... if you want to know, look it up.

Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.

 

[Spare_change]

Illegal aliens nor their spawn are within the full jurisdiction of our country. just as diplomats aren't.

Somebody needs to tell all those constitutional scholars that some anonymous guy on the internet says they are all wrong. I'm sure they will be happy to change their minds immediately.

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

It's your silly claim. Where is the link?

I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend MY time educating YOU ... if you want to know, look it up.

Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.

As you wish ... if you feel the need to be spoon-fed information, then look for somebody else to do it. If you want to smugly pretend that you have the correct answer, be my guest. If you're too damn lazy to check it out, so be it.

Frankly, punks like you who are more interested in 'winning' than in knowing the truth, are a major contributor to the problems in this country. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge base, you're only interested in expanding your ego.

You won ... you're ignorant, you're wrong, but you won .... and, after all, isn't feeding that pathetic little ego what's most important in the end?

 

[Unkotare]

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

How many of them are Supreme Court justices?

 

[Spare_change]

Illegal aliens nor their spawn are within the full jurisdiction of our country. just as diplomats aren't.

Somebody needs to tell all those constitutional scholars that some anonymous guy on the internet says they are all wrong. I'm sure they will be happy to change their minds immediately.

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

It's your silly claim. Where is the link?

I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend MY time educating YOU ... if you want to know, look it up.

Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.

You know, maybe you CAN learn something, after all ...

I'm going to show you just how embarrassed you should be about your lack of academic curiosity. I gave you a chance to learn, but your ego was more important ....

Historical Analysis of the Meaning of the 14th Amendment s First Section
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 14th AMENDMENT (follow the cites to identify the constitutional scholars)
Protection, Liberty And the Fourteenth Amendment, by Steven J. Heyman, Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law
Whence Comes Section One? The Abolitionist Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment, by Randy Barnett, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center

Now, you DID learn something, didn't you? You learned that your lethargy allowed you to make an ass out of yourself.

 

[Spare_change]

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

How many of them are Supreme Court justices?

Disregarding the dissenting opinions on the original cases, none have had the opportunity to offer a position.

 

[Unkotare]

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

How many of them are Supreme Court justices?

Disregarding the dissenting opinions on the original cases, none have had the opportunity to offer a position.

So, your answer is 'none' then?