Birthright Citizenship is Teed Up Again

[BackAgain]

Nope.

Yep.

 

[Unkotare]

Yep.

Who is anchored?

 

[meaner gene]

And if they wanted it to apply to illegal aliens they would have pointed them out

Already answered

Instead the idea it didn't cover "illegal aliens" is like saying that the 2nd amendment didn't cover "machine guns". As neither existed at the time the amendments were written.

The term "illegal alien" originated in the 1890s, and was first used in the San Antonio (Texas) Daily Light in 1895. The term was used in literature by 1924, and in the media in 1926 in an article in the New York Times.

The term "machine gun" originated in the 1860s and was first used in Richard Gatling's patent for the Gatling gun:

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Anchor babies are protected from the president and congress and Scotus, but not an amendment.

 

[BackAgain]

Who is anchored?

If a U.S. naturalized citizen has the ability to be the basis for other aliens to then seek the right to be here, the baby anchors the influx of relatives.

See: Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | CAIRCO Report - Concerned Americans, our Constitution, our Independent Republic | immigration, sustainability, western civilization, globalism, demographics, great replacement

 

[meaner gene]

Your ignorance is on display yet again, ensign.

Try to keep up.

First off, I hadn’t claimed it was in the Constitution.

Secondly, it is in the Constitution.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens ….”

You’re dismissed, ensign.

Illegal aliens are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the united states.
If they weren't, we would have no authority to deport them.

"Subject to the jurisdiction" means that a person, entity, or situation falls under the legal authority of a specific court or governing body, implying that they are bound by the laws and rules enforced within that jurisdiction; essentially, it means they can be legally acted upon within that area or by that authority.

 

[meaner gene]

If a U.S. naturalized citizen has the ability to be the basis for other aliens to then seek the right to be here, the baby anchors the influx of relatives.

See: Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | CAIRCO Report - Concerned Americans, our Constitution, our Independent Republic | immigration, sustainability, western civilization, globalism, demographics, great replacement

Actually you've described anchor people. who can be a relative of any age.
Like the way Melania Trump was able to bring in her parents.
And she's no baby.

 

[meaner gene]

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/10/637371714/first-ladys-parents-become-u-s-citizens-thanks-to-chain-migration

First Lady's Parents Become U.S. Citizens Thanks To 'Chain Migration'

The lawyer acknowledged that the Knavses had obtained citizenship via the very pathway that their son-in-law, the president, has so publicly denounced.

 

[Mac-7]

Already answered

For some reason its very important to the lefties posting here that illegal aliens, fake asylum seekers, tourists from china and any other random woman from the 3rd World be able to birth US citizens

I dont know if we can change that during the next 4 years or not

But for the well being of America we are going to try

 

[Mac-7]

OK...so we ban all pregnant women who are not citizens.

Problem solved.

We could deny pregnant women entry to the country till the birthright problem has been fixed

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You are worried about something that is not a problem.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, someone after the founders screwed up

Did I say the founders screwed up? I don't believe I did. You just keep cascading your ignorant comments.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

We have an excellent case against birthright citizenship for illegal alien children

And at least 4 years to get it done

But we cant settle it here

Have the amendment submitted by tour congressional reps and let it go forward. Any other action is a waste of time and money.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There is no clear text that 5 unelected demigods in black robes cant reimagine

You do of course know there are 9 justices, not 5, and they are all not elected. At least 5 have to agree on that reimagination. Another error, but a minor one.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Loopholes can get closed.

Pass the amendment. That is what is required. I would be all for it, but you don't seem to think it is necessary when it actually is.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There is. Anchoring is involved. Thus, the term.

The concept of an anchor baby is a myth created by people who cannot figure out what to call them. There is a baby, but no anchor is involved. As Tom Homan has explicitly stated, illegals with children who are US citizens can be deported and have been for decades. No anchoring allowed in this area should be shown on all maps and charts of the US.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

We could deny pregnant women entry to the country till the birthright problem has been fixed

Hey lady, you look pretty fat! You could be pregnant, so no entry for you.

You going to do a pelvic exam to determine if they are pregnant? Blood test? Urinalysis? You really don't think much past emotional knee-jerk responses, do you?

 

[BackAgain]

Pass the amendment. That is what is required. I would be all for it, but you don't seem to think it is necessary when it actually is.

I’m not convinced it would require an amendment.

The current amendment is the subject of discussion and debate as I had previously noted. So what could be needed instead of an amendment is a Congressionally passed law to state clearly what it means; or perhaps an Executive Order directing how it shall be interpreted by the Immigration agents and courts.

Either would likely lead to a court challenge. And perhaps the SCOTUS would then have to revisit the viability of its previous interpretation. And overrule it.

 

[Unkotare]

I’m not convinced it would require an amendment.

The current amendment is the subject of discussion and debate as I had previously noted. So what could be needed instead of an amendment is a Congressionally passed law to state clearly what it means; or perhaps an Executive Order directing how it shall be interpreted by the Immigration agents and courts.

Either would likely lead to a court challenge. And perhaps the SCOTUS would then have to revisit the viability of its previous interpretation. And overrule it.

Not gonna happen.

 

[BackAgain]

The concept of an anchor baby is a myth created by people who cannot figure out what to call them.

No. It’s not.

It is merely a convenient term of art referring to an alien woman having her baby on US soil which then (if we buy birthright by place of birth) makes the child a U.S. citizen. If the child is a U.S. citizen, then he serves to anchor applications for other family members to come her and to seek citizenship on that basis.

Anchor babies is not the only term used for this scenario. But it works.