The anchor baby myth

[Syriusly]

, the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother is a foreign national. ....

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. .

And your documentation is?

...is already posted on this thread. Stop chasing your own tail.

Your disingenuousness is showing!

Well, isn’t this special? Our Agent Provocateur chooses to not provide supportive documentation to confirm the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother at the time of birth is a foreign national.

Of course, our Supreme Court addressed that assertion In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) in which the Court states the following regarding the 14th Amendment:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.

JWK

And the Supreme Court in the case of Wong Kim Ark specifically said that phrase is not precedent- and went onto say:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

 

[Syriusly]

With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time....

What a surprise that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts.

What I posted are historical facts. I wrote:

With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship

”
For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”


Contrary to your above assertion, "that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts", the Court was not addressing whether or not a child born to a foreign national while on American soil who entered our country illegally and was in violation of our laws, was a citizen upon birth.

You are free to post you opinions, but not entitled to alter historical facts to support your absurd opinions.

JWK

Plyler v. Doe points out from Wong Kim Ark:


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.

Which is why not court has agreed with your interpretation of Wong Kim Ark

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. .

And your documentation is?

...is already posted on this thread. Stop chasing your own tail.

Your disingenuousness [sic] is showing!

Your stupidity is showing. Wong Kim Ark's parents were both foreign nationals.

Actually, your ignorance of the law is showing by citing the Wong case to support your silly notions.


With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship

”
For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
)

By John's reasoning, only foreign nationals born here- and not employed in any capacity by the emperor of China would be legal citizens. By John's reasoning- if they were in the employ of Russia- it would be okay- only children of Chinese diplomats would be excluded.

 

[johnwk]

With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time....

What a surprise that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts.

What I posted are historical facts. I wrote:

With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship

”
For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”


Contrary to your above assertion, "that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts", the Court was not addressing whether or not a child born to a foreign national while on American soil who entered our country illegally and was in violation of our laws, was a citizen upon birth.

You are free to post you opinions, but not entitled to alter historical facts to support your absurd opinions.

JWK

Plyler v. Doe points out

Plyler v Doe had nothing to do with deciding who was or was not a citizen of the United States.

What an absurd and desperate attempt to obfuscate the subject being discussed.

JWK

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

 

[Unkotare]

How's that amendment coming along, champ?

 

[johnwk]

And your documentation is?

...is already posted on this thread. Stop chasing your own tail.

Your disingenuousness [sic] is showing!

Your stupidity is showing. Wong Kim Ark's parents were both foreign nationals.

Actually, your ignorance of the law is showing by citing the Wong case to support your silly notions.


With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship

”
For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
)

By John's reasoning, only foreign nationals born here- and not employed in any capacity by the emperor of China would be legal citizens. By John's reasoning- if they were in the employ of Russia- it would be okay- only children of Chinese diplomats would be excluded.

I suspected the ethnic card would eventually be played by someone to obfuscate the subject being discussed.

BTW, the Wong Kim Ark case, which I agree with, is based on sound reasoning and does not violate the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.


JWK

To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!

 

[johnwk]

How's that amendment coming along, champ?

How presumptuous of me to expect you to return and support your previous post which I debunked.

JWK

 

[Unkotare]

How's that amendment coming along, champ?

How presumptuous of me to expect you to return and support your previous post which I debunked.

JWK

You've already been proven wrong. If you're so into self-abuse, pay someone to help you.

 

[Syriusly]

...is already posted on this thread. Stop chasing your own tail.

Your disingenuousness [sic] is showing!

Your stupidity is showing. Wong Kim Ark's parents were both foreign nationals.

Actually, your ignorance of the law is showing by citing the Wong case to support your silly notions.


With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship

”
For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
)

By John's reasoning, only foreign nationals born here- and not employed in any capacity by the emperor of China would be legal citizens. By John's reasoning- if they were in the employ of Russia- it would be okay- only children of Chinese diplomats would be excluded.

I suspected the ethnic card would eventually be played by someone to obfuscate the subject being discussed.

BTW, the Wong Kim Ark case, which I agree with, is based on sound reasoning and does not violate the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.


JWK

Well I bet the Supreme Court is thrilled that you agree with Wong Kim Ark.

 

[Syriusly]

With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time....

What a surprise that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts.

What I posted are historical facts. I wrote:

With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship

”
For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”


Contrary to your above assertion, "that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts", the Court was not addressing whether or not a child born to a foreign national while on American soil who entered our country illegally and was in violation of our laws, was a citizen upon birth.

You are free to post you opinions, but not entitled to alter historical facts to support your absurd opinions.

JWK

Plyler v. Doe points out

Plyler v Doe had nothing to do with deciding who was or was not a citizen of the United States.

What an absurd and desperate attempt to obfuscate the subject being discussed.

JWK

Plyler v. Doe does dissect 'jurisdiction'.

As we all know- the 14th Amendment says that anyone born in the United States- and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- is a citizen

And as noted in Plyler


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.

Every child born in the United States- other than the children of diplomats- is born within the jurisdiction of the United States.

And this is why Conservatives who want to pretend that children born here of illegal parents are not citizens- hate Plyler v. Doe.

It, along with Wong Kim Ark, nails shut the argument.

Since that time no court has ruled that a child of illegal parents is not a citizen.

On the contrary- children born in the United States have their citizenship recognized regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

You may argue that the citizenship rule is being misinterpreted- but you cannot deny that in fact- this is the current rule of the land.

 

[johnwk]

How's that amendment coming along, champ?

How presumptuous of me to expect you to return and support your previous post which I debunked.

JWK

You've already been proven wrong..

So you say but fail to substantiate.

JWK

 

[johnwk]

With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time....

What a surprise that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts.

What I posted are historical facts. I wrote:

With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship

”
For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”


Contrary to your above assertion, "that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts", the Court was not addressing whether or not a child born to a foreign national while on American soil who entered our country illegally and was in violation of our laws, was a citizen upon birth.

You are free to post you opinions, but not entitled to alter historical facts to support your absurd opinions.

JWK

Plyler v. Doe points out

Plyler v Doe had nothing to do with deciding who was or was not a citizen of the United States.

What an absurd and desperate attempt to obfuscate the subject being discussed.

JWK

Plyler v. Doe does dissect 'jurisdiction'.

The Court in Plyler was not addressing who was or was not a citizen of the United States. However, in
Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court did in fact address who is and who is not a Citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

The Court states:

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country



'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .' The evident meaning of these last words is, 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

JWK



To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!

 

[Windship]

.[/QUOTE]
A guess...

In truth, I couldn't care less...

When you advocate for the 12,000,000 invaders to stay on US soil, you advocate against the best interests of the United States and The People.

You stand with the Invaders.

I stand with my country.

'Nuff said.[/QUOTE]

How true. But there IS more. There is the ILL effects that the bleeding ignorant hearts always skirt and have no answer for.
Unions wiped out.
Stagnant or lower wages.
Loss of benefits.
Hazardous working conditions.
More hours to be worked.
Less taxes being paid so tax base gets depleted.
American economy suffers.
And we haven't even STARTED talking about hi tech H1B1 visas!

 

[Unkotare]

How's that amendment coming along, champ?

How presumptuous of me to expect you to return and support your previous post which I debunked.

JWK

You've already been proven wrong..

So you say but fail to substantiate.

It has been explained to you over and over and over again. You are just pretending not to see like some dimwitted child who refuses to admit he's wrong.

 

[Windship]

[/QUOTE]

Your stupidity is showing.[/QUOTE]

Well princess, don't get ur panties in a twist, uve got him beat.

 

[johnwk]

How's that amendment coming along, champ?

How presumptuous of me to expect you to return and support your previous post which I debunked.

JWK

You've already been proven wrong..

So you say but fail to substantiate.

It has been explained to you over and over and over again. You are just pretending not to see like some dimwitted child who refuses to admit he's wrong.

You have offered nothing more than your personal wrongheaded opinion, while closing your eyes to documented facts.

JWK

 

[johnwk]

.

When you advocate for the 12,000,000 invaders to stay on US soil, you advocate against the best interests of the United States and The People.

Let us take a look at the destructive social and economic consequences in just one County in California inflicted upon its citizens in 1995 when this massive invasion of our borders began to accelerate. CLICK HERE and scroll to page 93 for testimony given by JOAN ZINSER before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 13, 1995


Good morning Chairman Smith and other honorable members of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. I am Joan Zinser, Deputy Director of the San Diego County Department of Social Services. I direct the department's Income Maintenance Bureau, which has responsibility for AFDC, Food Stamps and Medicaid eligibility determinations. I am here today to tell you about the effects of illegal immigration on the County's assistance programs, and to present information regarding impacts on other county-funded services.


Impacts on San Diego County

In 1993, illegal aliens in San Diego County were estimated to be 7.9% of the population, or a total of almost 220,000 illegal aliens in a county with a population of slightly over 2 1/2 million. A 1993 California State Senate report estimated that the State, local governments - primarily the County - and schools incurred $304 million in costs to provide services to illegal aliens. These costs were offset by only $60 million in taxes generated by illegal aliens - leaving a net impact of $244 million.

Welfare Costs.

When a child is a US citizen, AFDC can be granted for the child but not the parent, if the parent is an undocumented immigrant. In 1992 there were 6,414 children born to undocumented immigrant parents in San Diego County hospitals. Each year, the illegal alien parents of nearly 2000 "citizen children" apply for and receive AFDC in San Diego County. The cumulative total of these "citizen child" cases continues to rise each year.

Public assistance is intended to support the citizen child, but is paid to the illegal alien parent and is, no doubt, used by the parent to support the entire family. Costs for providing AFDC to "citizen children" cases in San Diego totaled $37 million in 1993 for approximately 5430 AFDC cases.

Additional costs are incurred in Child Welfare Services. Combining costs for Out-of-Home and Family Maintenance services to families of illegal aliens results in an additional cost of $1.7 million.

Medicaid and Other Health-Related- Costs.

Medicaid services are an increasingly large portion of the costs involved in illegal immigration. In 1992, Medicaid paid for 6,414 births illegal alien mothers. Although studies have shown that illegal aliens use fewer Medicaid services than do the age-equivalent members of the general population, significant costs remain. Delivery costs are greater for babies with mothers lacking adequate prenatal care and many medical conditions are treated more cost-effectively in their early stages. Infectious diseases are also a major concern of the County. San Diego county has historically carried large costs because of illegal aliens with these problems. Costs associated with providing emergency and pregnancy related needs to illegal aliens are paid for under "restricted Medi-Cal benefits." During the 1992 calendar year, an estimated $37 million was paid for "restricted Medi-Cal benefits." Other costs, including uncompensated care in hospitals, community clinics, and other health services elevated the 1993 total costs to over $50 million.

Criminal justice.
A recent 90-day pilot project involved having INS Agents present in the county jails to interview those suspected of being an undocumented immigrant. Approximately 20% of the persons booked into the jails during that pilot were identified as being illegal aliens. With annual bookings of approximatel 105,000 persons a year, it is estimated that up to 21,000 were illegal aliens.

According to the San Diego County District Attorney, 8,521 felony crimes were committed by illegal aliens between 1987 and 1992. Illegal aliens commit an estimated 22% of felony crimes committed in the county. The number of misdemeanors committed during the same period in San Diego County by illegal aliens is estimated to be 17,000. In 1993, approximately 15. 1 % of the costs -accrued in dealing with crimes were spent on illegal aliens. Costs for illegal aliens to the legal system totaled $151 million in the County of San Diego for 1993.

Education.

Recently, a video of students crossing the border and getting on a school bus in San Diego County in order to receive free education was shown nationwide. Locally, we have worked to make sure that this situation does not recur, but education of the children of illegal aliens is also a significant CDSt. It is estimated that $60 million was spent in San Diego County in 1993 for education of illegal aliens.
________

And, more recently see:

Illegal Immigration Costs California Over Ten Billion Annually

Dateline: December, 2004

Among the key finding of the report are that the state's already struggling K-12 education system spends approximately $7.7 billion a year to school the children of illegal aliens who now constitute 15 percent of the student body. Another $1.4 billion of the taxpayers' money goes toward providing health care to illegal aliens and their families, the same amount that is spent incarcerating illegal aliens criminals.


Testimony about "51 Florida Hospitals in trouble" due to illegal aliens expenses:

Jun 10, 2008

”No need to editorialize. Here is a sampling of the sort of facts the politicians and pro-illegal lobby want you to ignore, yet expect you to continue to bear the burden of. Is it any wonder scores of hospitals in border states and elsewhere have shut down or closed their ER units?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Texas Faces Rising Cost For Illegal Immigrant Care

Aug 19, 2010

Texas spent at least $250 million in the past year for medical care and imprisonment of illegal immigrants and other non-citizens.

The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer

May 6, 2013

”In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar.”


Judicial Watch: 165,900 Criminal Aliens into US Population Through April 2014

Mar 2015

”Nearly 166,000 convicted criminal illegal aliens were released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as of April, 2014. This is the analysis of 76 pages of DHS documents obtained by Judicial Watch via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The criminal illegal aliens include rapists, murderers and kidnappers.”

_________

It is absolutely stunning that so many close their eyes to the devastating social and financial consequences inflicted upon American Citizens by illegal entrants .


JWK

To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!

 

[Unkotare]

You have offered nothing more than your personal wrongheaded opinion

I "offered" exactly what you insisted upon when you were going on and on about "mother a foreign national." Instead of admitting that you had been proven exactly and specifically wrong, you tried to move the goal posts and pretend to be unaware of your failure. You act like a petulant, ignorant child and then make a pretense of concern for "facts." You're a clown, and your insistence cannot alter reality.

 

[Syriusly]

What a surprise that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts.

What I posted are historical facts. I wrote:

With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship

”
For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”


Contrary to your above assertion, "that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts", the Court was not addressing whether or not a child born to a foreign national while on American soil who entered our country illegally and was in violation of our laws, was a citizen upon birth.

You are free to post you opinions, but not entitled to alter historical facts to support your absurd opinions.

JWK

Plyler v. Doe points out

Plyler v Doe had nothing to do with deciding who was or was not a citizen of the United States.

What an absurd and desperate attempt to obfuscate the subject being discussed.

JWK

Plyler v. Doe does dissect 'jurisdiction'.

The Court in Plyler was not addressing who was or was not a citizen of the United States. However, in
Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the Court did in fact address who is and who is not a Citizen of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

The Court states:

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country



'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof .' The evident meaning of these last words is, 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

JWK

I already addressed that- and am not going to go do it again- the Court in Wong Kim Ark pointed out that that comment in Elk is not precedent- and then went onto point out that children born of foreign parents in the United States are U.S. citizens.

 

[mdainvegas]

Squirting a baby and then return home to China does not create a citizen.