Fox News: Mexican Anchor Babies Make Video Cursing At Trump (Warning: Very Foul Language)

[Liquid Reigns]

There's no such thing as an 'anchor baby,' the notion is bigoted ignorance and idiocy.

Persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.

By what law are they born citizens? They are not covered via the 14th amendment as it is merely declaratory of existing law (Wong Kim Ark). There is NO law that declares them citizens, it is nothing but policy (7FAM1111) that does such. So while they may be born US Nationals, that does not make them born US Citizens. All US Citizens are also US Nationals, but not all US Nationals are US Citizens.

Not sure what law, but the constitution says Rubio & Cruz are not eligible to be President, so the law must be high.

Rubio was born here to parents that had legal domicile, Cruz was naturalized via being born to a US Citizen mother outside the US. Cruz isn't eligible to be president, Cruz already has a court case against him going through the court system. He's not going to be the nominee so it won't really matter.

 

[Syriusly]

There's no such thing as an 'anchor baby,' the notion is bigoted ignorance and idiocy.

Persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.

By what law are they born citizens? They are not covered via the 14th amendment as it is merely declaratory of existing law (Wong Kim Ark). There is NO law that declares them citizens, it is nothing but policy (7FAM1111) that does such. So while they may be born US Nationals, that does not make them born US Citizens. All US Citizens are also US Nationals, but not all US Nationals are US Citizens.

The U.S. Constitution says that they are born citizens.

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.

The 14th Citizenship Clause is nothing but declaratory of existing law (Wong Kim Ark), so what law decries these children to be born citizens? "And subject to the jurisdiction" requires more than being merely subject to civil law. They have NO political status, are not legally domiciled here and are not recognized as being here by the federal govt.

What the hell are you talking about- I quote the United States Constitution- that is the Supreme Law of the United States.

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

That is the law- that is the Constitution.

From Plyler v. Doe

Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

And finally- before you whine about 'within its jurisdiction' is supposedly meaning something different from 'subject to the jurisdiction'- this comment from Plyler:


Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 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."

 

[Syriusly]

There's no such thing as an 'anchor baby,' the notion is bigoted ignorance and idiocy.

Persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.

No, it's not "bigoted ignorance and idiocy". It's a real phenomenon.
There is legal grounds in arguing that anchor babies are not US citizens.

What part about the Constitution is unclear to you?

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.

Anyone who can be arrested or has to pay taxes is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Since illegal aliens can indeed be arrested- and deported- they- and their children born here- are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

Here's the problem: who told you "subject to the jurisdiction" means "anyone who can be arrested or has to pay taxes"?
My suggestion? Do your homework and google it before you post...

My suggestion- do your own homework- I have done mine

Plyler v. Doe


From Plyler v. Doe

Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

And finally- before you whine about 'within its jurisdiction' is supposedly meaning something different from 'subject to the jurisdiction'- this comment from Plyler:


Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 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."

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense.

 

[Syriusly]

There's no such thing as an 'anchor baby,' the notion is bigoted ignorance and idiocy.

Persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.

By what law are they born citizens? They are not covered via the 14th amendment as it is merely declaratory of existing law (Wong Kim Ark). There is NO law that declares them citizens, it is nothing but policy (7FAM1111) that does such. So while they may be born US Nationals, that does not make them born US Citizens. All US Citizens are also US Nationals, but not all US Nationals are US Citizens.

Not sure what law, but the constitution says Rubio & Cruz are not eligible to be President, so the law must be high.

Rubio was born here to parents that had legal domicile, Cruz was naturalized via being born to a US Citizen mother outside the US. Cruz isn't eligible to be president, Cruz already has a court case against him going through the court system. He's not going to be the nominee so it won't really matter.

Both Cruz and Rubio are eligible- both were born U.S. citizens- though neither is likely to be a nominee.

 

[Syriusly]

The beans have to resort to obscene language out of frustration ]

I guess that explains Trump's use of obscene language

"These people – I'd like to use really foul language. I won't do it. I was going to say they're really full of s**t, but I won't say that." –Donald Trump speaking about politicians at a campaign rally in Exeter, New Hampshire

"Knock the shit out of ISIS….And you can tell them to go f––– themselves."

Diversion alert.

Yep- can't expect to hold the leading GOP Presidential candidate to the same obscene language standards as you hold what Stevie the racist so colorfully calls 'beans'

It is any wonder that Trump is the favorite of USMB racists?

 

[shintao]

There's no such thing as an 'anchor baby,' the notion is bigoted ignorance and idiocy.

Persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.

By what law are they born citizens? They are not covered via the 14th amendment as it is merely declaratory of existing law (Wong Kim Ark). There is NO law that declares them citizens, it is nothing but policy (7FAM1111) that does such. So while they may be born US Nationals, that does not make them born US Citizens. All US Citizens are also US Nationals, but not all US Nationals are US Citizens.

Not sure what law, but the constitution says Rubio & Cruz are not eligible to be President, so the law must be high.

Rubio was born here to parents that had legal domicile, Cruz was naturalized via being born to a US Citizen mother outside the US. Cruz isn't eligible to be president, Cruz already has a court case against him going through the court system. He's not going to be the nominee so it won't really matter.

Nope, Rubio was born here to two foreigners,....natural born requires two citizens. Cruz himself said he was ineligible, and he is a legal Constitution scholar and all, worked cases in the Supreme court, says he knows. You calling him a liar?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

There's no such thing as an 'anchor baby,' the notion is bigoted ignorance and idiocy.

Persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.

By what law are they born citizens? They are not covered via the 14th amendment as it is merely declaratory of existing law (Wong Kim Ark). There is NO law that declares them citizens, it is nothing but policy (7FAM1111) that does such. So while they may be born US Nationals, that does not make them born US Citizens. All US Citizens are also US Nationals, but not all US Nationals are US Citizens.

The U.S. Constitution says that they are born citizens.

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.

The 14th Citizenship Clause is nothing but declaratory of existing law (Wong Kim Ark), so what law decries these children to be born citizens? "And subject to the jurisdiction" requires more than being merely subject to civil law. They have NO political status, are not legally domiciled here and are not recognized as being here by the federal govt.

What the hell are you talking about- I quote the United States Constitution- that is the Supreme Law of the United States.

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

That is the law- that is the Constitution.

From Plyler v. Doe

Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

And finally- before you whine about 'within its jurisdiction' is supposedly meaning something different from 'subject to the jurisdiction'- this comment from Plyler:


Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 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."

Plyler is a case directed at the State not the Federal Govt. Plyler has no holding nor precedent when it comes to birth in the US. You are citing nothing more than mere dicta which has no legal holding from a footnote. Sorry, you just failed.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

There's no such thing as an 'anchor baby,' the notion is bigoted ignorance and idiocy.

Persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.

By what law are they born citizens? They are not covered via the 14th amendment as it is merely declaratory of existing law (Wong Kim Ark). There is NO law that declares them citizens, it is nothing but policy (7FAM1111) that does such. So while they may be born US Nationals, that does not make them born US Citizens. All US Citizens are also US Nationals, but not all US Nationals are US Citizens.

Not sure what law, but the constitution says Rubio & Cruz are not eligible to be President, so the law must be high.

Rubio was born here to parents that had legal domicile, Cruz was naturalized via being born to a US Citizen mother outside the US. Cruz isn't eligible to be president, Cruz already has a court case against him going through the court system. He's not going to be the nominee so it won't really matter.

Nope, Rubio was born here to two foreigners,....natural born requires two citizens. Cruz himself said he was ineligible, and he is a legal Constitution scholar and all, worked cases in the Supreme court, says he knows. You calling him a liar?

Natural born merely requires the parent to be here legally domiciled, whether that is permanent or temporary, it must be recognized by the govt. Rubio's parents were here recognized by the govt. It's not much matter as he won't be the nominee.
I'm calling Ted an idiot.

 

[Unkotare]

There's no such thing as an 'anchor baby,' the notion is bigoted ignorance and idiocy.

Persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.

No, it's not "bigoted ignorance and idiocy". It's a real phenomenon.
There is legal grounds in arguing that anchor babies are not US citizens.

No

 

[Liquid Reigns]

There's no such thing as an 'anchor baby,' the notion is bigoted ignorance and idiocy.

Persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.

By what law are they born citizens? They are not covered via the 14th amendment as it is merely declaratory of existing law (Wong Kim Ark). There is NO law that declares them citizens, it is nothing but policy (7FAM1111) that does such. So while they may be born US Nationals, that does not make them born US Citizens. All US Citizens are also US Nationals, but not all US Nationals are US Citizens.

Not sure what law, but the constitution says Rubio & Cruz are not eligible to be President, so the law must be high.

Rubio was born here to parents that had legal domicile, Cruz was naturalized via being born to a US Citizen mother outside the US. Cruz isn't eligible to be president, Cruz already has a court case against him going through the court system. He's not going to be the nominee so it won't really matter.

Both Cruz and Rubio are eligible- both were born U.S. citizens- though neither is likely to be a nominee.

Cruz is not eligible, Rubio is. Cruz was born outside the US to a mother that never registered his birth in the US consulate in Canada, he entered the US on his mothers passport, he falls under the 1952 INA.

 

[Agit8r]

Clearly, these kids are much smarter than the OP.

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

There's no such thing as an 'anchor baby,' the notion is bigoted ignorance and idiocy.

Persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.

No, it's not "bigoted ignorance and idiocy". It's a real phenomenon.
There is legal grounds in arguing that anchor babies are not US citizens.

What part about the Constitution is unclear to you?

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.

Anyone who can be arrested or has to pay taxes is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Since illegal aliens can indeed be arrested- and deported- they- and their children born here- are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.

Here's the problem: who told you "subject to the jurisdiction" means "anyone who can be arrested or has to pay taxes"?
My suggestion? Do your homework and google it before you post...

My suggestion- do your own homework- I have done mine

Plyler v. Doe


From Plyler v. Doe

Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

And finally- before you whine about 'within its jurisdiction' is supposedly meaning something different from 'subject to the jurisdiction'- this comment from Plyler:


Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 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."

Apparently you need a little help in understanding the reading materials...

First of all, "Plyler v. Doe" is not a birthright citizenship case, it's a case against a Texas state statute. Specifically, it is a statute which "withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children". From this case, we learn that the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment extends to "citizen or stranger". It has no implication of whether anchor babies are "citizen" or "stranger" whatsoever.

Secondly, in "United States v. Wong Kim Ark", the Supreme Court ruled that a person who is (1) born in the United States, (2) of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power, (3) whose parents have a permanent residence in the United States, and (4) whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States. These are NOT the anchor babies we are talking about. If you have permanent residence, you are NOT an illegal alien. The case says nothing about the citizenship of a baby born to illegal aliens in the US.

When it comes to the laws and the Constitution, you have to be really careful not to generalize the implication of a precedence imprudently. That's like the basics of anyone who studies laws... I know you probably think it is Okay to have those anchor babies as "citizens" of our country - that is your political position. However, it doesn't justify your illogical argument that the Plyler or Wong case gives any grounds for birthright citizenship of illegal aliens!

 

[S.J.]

The beans have to resort to obscene language out of frustration ]

I guess that explains Trump's use of obscene language

"These people – I'd like to use really foul language. I won't do it. I was going to say they're really full of s**t, but I won't say that." –Donald Trump speaking about politicians at a campaign rally in Exeter, New Hampshire

"Knock the shit out of ISIS….And you can tell them to go f––– themselves."

Diversion alert.

Yep- can't expect to hold the leading GOP Presidential candidate to the same obscene language standards as you hold what Stevie the racist so colorfully calls 'beans'

It is any wonder that Trump is the favorite of USMB racists?

Another diversion alert.

 

[bripat9643]

There's no such thing as an 'anchor baby,' the notion is bigoted ignorance and idiocy.

Persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.

It's amazing how close you come to being absolutely 100% wrong.

 

[Claudette]

There's no such thing as an 'anchor baby,' the notion is bigoted ignorance and idiocy.

Persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.

That they are and that's one amendment that should be removed or amended.

It was put in there for the children of slaves so they would be recognized as American citizens.

We are the only country in the world that recognizes anyone born in our country as a citizen.

The clowns in DC should get to work and remove the anchor baby amendment.

 

[Unkotare]

There's no such thing as an 'anchor baby,' the notion is bigoted ignorance and idiocy.

Persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.

By what law are they born citizens? They are not covered via the 14th amendment as it is merely declaratory of existing law (Wong Kim Ark). There is NO law that declares them citizens, it is nothing but policy (7FAM1111) that does such. So while they may be born US Nationals, that does not make them born US Citizens. All US Citizens are also US Nationals, but not all US Nationals are US Citizens.

Not sure what law, but the constitution says Rubio & Cruz are not eligible to be President, so the law must be high.

Rubio was born here to parents that had legal domicile, Cruz was naturalized via being born to a US Citizen mother outside the US. Cruz isn't eligible to be president, Cruz already has a court case against him going through the court system. He's not going to be the nominee so it won't really matter.

...natural born requires two citizens.

Wrong.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.