Thread: 1st Anchor Baby of 2008 In Houston 4th child of illegal

Originally Posted by miguelina

I can only speak from my experience and know nothing of the Muslim culture overseas. I know it takes all kinds to do bad. I believe there are more good people than bad in this world, unfortunately we hear too much about the bad.

Illegal is illegal, no matter how you look at it. I don't believe 2 illegals can birth a legal citizen. I also want the 14th amendment to be applied correctly, which does not include giving citizenship status to anyone not born of at least one US citizen parent.

Hi miguelina,
I understand that. I believe that your motivation is/was good but sometimes good intentions lead to bad results. And this goodwill would be easily exploited by open border lobby. Owing to the state of our civilization we cannot afford that.

NO "anchor baby" is an American. Such children are JUST as ILLEGAL as their PARENTS!

Originally Posted by AmericanMe

FOURTH CHILD FOR THIS ILLEGAL WHO NEEDED A TRANSLATOR!!!

I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A NATIONAL REGISTRY OF ALL ANCHOR BABIES AND WHAT THEY ARE COSTING US! WE HAVE TO REPEAL THE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP AND MAKE IT RETROACTIVE! IT'S OUT OF CONTROL....

IMO, THIS NEW "ANCHOR BABY" DOESN'T COUNT AS BEING 1ST BORN IN HOUSTON OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN AMERICA!

IMO, ONLY "AMERICAN" BABIES BORN 1ST OF THE YEAR COUNT IN AMERICA.

Oh my gosh! I hate these people who drop babies here! I'm waiting on my immigration papers still, and a ton of hispanics keep on asking me why I don't drop a kid here. Here are my reasons.

1.) I hate needles so there's no way I'd have a kid.

2.) I pay taxes to the US govt and I can't even work. I don't want others paying for my kid.

3.) I'm too young to have a kid. (By traditional AMERICAN standards that is)

There should be a law passed that if you have a kid here, it's still a citizen of whatever country you're a citizen from. Canada doesn't allow you to drop anchor. Or if an illegal has a kid, put it up for adoption. How can an illegal support a kid in the filth they live in? They can't afford diapers, food, doctor visits. Plus they're working slave jobs 24-7, so they can't look after their kid. If you have an anchor, you should have to prove to immigration that you can support your kid legally before immigration decides your immigration status. I mean hell you gotta prove that you can afford to go to school here as an international student. So why not make the same rules for dropping a kid?

the end of the year she will have another baby

more freebies from the USA

It would be interesting to know how many New Year's babes were born to illegals.

I don't consider having an I-Pod or a cell phone to be a sign of assimilation. Though I applaud you Miguelina for your rational views on the 14th and illegal aliens in general, watch out, the raza will consider you to be a "coconut or a vendido" for your views.

Omaha's first is an Anchor.

Below is something I posted in another thread regarding the 14th Amendment and why IA's have more rights than you:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-569300-.html#569300

This is going to be a lo-o-o-ong reply but well worth the read.

Originally Posted by USPatriot

Originally Posted by Papillon

Bottom line:

Both bills listed are State's rights issues.

If the federal government didn't do its job protecting our borders as required in 2 different sections of the Constitution then inhabitants in the 50 States fall under State jurisdiction.

Only those residing in Federal-only controlled areas fall under federal control.

Under strict construction the federal government only has jurisdiction where it exercises "sole legislative authority" which includes *none* of the territory of the 50 sovereign States unless that territory was voluntarily ceded to the federal government by the State.

Dr. Paul's reasoning was correct on these two bills and consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Welcome to Alipac Papillon

Your post is very interesting and I am wondering if each state could stop giving Citizenship to Anchor Babies using State Authority rights ? The 14th Amendment did not intend for those NOT "Under The Jurisdiction of the United States" (IA's) to be eligible for citizenship.

I believe, and scholars have stated, that the practice of giving "birthright citizenship" to "anchor babies" is done by a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment, section 1:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (emphasis added)

In all things constitutional you must go back to the writings and find the original intent.

You've already heard the arguments regarding Art. 4 sec.4 and Art. 1 sec. 8 cl. 15 mandating that the feds protect the States against invasion. These are also part of the logic behind "federal-only" jurisdiction on deportation.

The purpose of the 14th was to guarantee freed slaves the same rights as any other "freeman."

There are several misapplications of the 14th Amendment.

First:
The amnesty crowd uses the "equal protection" clause to fight against any state or local enforcement provisions because they claim it denies a person their rights to freely travel (liberty) and own property.

Illegals are criminals that don't have rights here but exercise rights that really don't exist because they have not been found guilty through "due process of law."

Second:
Illegal aliens have not made themselves "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by refusing to report themselves to the federal government upon entry into the country.

Third:
This is absolutely the hardest one for most people to grasp.

There are 3 different definitions for "United States" according to the law. Each one has its place and the law applies the definition based on which one makes sense under the law as written without defining which definition is intended.

1) The "federal zone" which includes ONLY D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and any other federally controlled land such as military installations, federal parks, or other lands ceded to the federal government by the States in which the federal government exercises "sole legislative authority."

This does not include ANY of the 50 sovereign States.

2) The Union of the 50 sovereign States.

This does NOT include anything included in the "federal zone."

3) The United States as a nation among the community of nations.

This includes the "federal zone," the 50 States, and all territorial waters recognized by international law.

Illegal aliens do not make themselves "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to ANY of these 3 "United States" jurisdictions.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that foreign embassy personnel are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and their children born here are NOT "U.S. citizens" even if born in a hospital off embassy grounds because they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Here's the real mind-blower:
Prior to the 14th Amendment the federal government had NO authority over sovereign American Citizens (note the capital "C") living and working in the 50 States. Federal authority was limited to the 18 enumerated powers in the Constitution, NONE of which placed restrictions on the rights of the individual.

After the 14th ALL persons "born or naturalized" were native born Citizens of the united States of America (definition 3) as well as sovereign Citizens of the State in which they reside but also had a "skin" placed over them designating them United States (federal) citizens (lower case "c") putting them under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

From Hennessy v Richardson Drug Co. 189 US 25, 23 S Ct 532, 47 L Ed 697:

"b. The term "citizen" as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law."

Just as a "subject" is the property of the British Crown, a "U.S. citizen" is a "subject" and therefore property of the federal government through the skin laid on you at birth through the 14th Amendment.

This skin can be shed by filing the proper letters with the proper "authorities" thereby reverting to your natural rights as a sovereign native born American Citizen of the united States of America and bring yourself out from under the thumb of the federal government.

You would then only be subject to the 18 limited powers granted under the Constitution. No law prosecuted in a "United States District Court" (territorial court) would apply to you.

From the United States Supreme Court, Balzac v Porto Rico, October term, 1921, page 312:

"The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV section 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court."

Article IV sec. 3 clause 2 says "Territory or other Property belonging to the United States" (emphasis added)

"Territorial courts" were disbanded when a territory became a State of the Union. They were no longer federal territory. Today's "territorial courts" don't have any jurisdiction outside the land they sit on but DO have jurisdiction over any "nonresident" (to the federal zone) "U.S. citizen."

The big "gotcha" is when a person claims to be a "U.S. citizen" on ANY legal document or verbally in a legal proceeding they have placed themselves as a subject of the "federal zone" United States.

During the debates and congressional passage of the 14th prior to sending it to the States, a congressman (I don't recall the name) recognized the implications of the language and stated something to the effect,

"I fear we have just enslaved the whole of the people,"

when the intended goal was to guarantee the rights of those recently freed.

Bottom line:

Illegal aliens have more rights than you because they are NOT "U.S. citizens" and subject to the same restrictions you are under the federal government.

To my knowledge there is NO such thing as an "anchor baby" based on standing U.S.S.C. case law pertaining to foreign nationals as embassy staff. Any cases to the contrary would be in direct conflict with that case law based on the "subject to" in the 14th. Even children of IA's born in the "federal zone" don't fit into the "subject to" category.

The Fed WANTS anchor babies so they can hammer them for taxes to continue to pay the interest on the debt.

Fed law enforcement has NO jurisdiction in the 50 States unless the local County Sheriff allows it. HE is the supreme law enforcement officer in his county as he is elected and empowered directly by "the People."

It gets deeper...
I could go on...

Hammer away.
You'll waste your typing time.
I won't reply to this.
It's up to you to do the research for your freedom.
The resources are now much easier to find.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"

Originally Posted by BorderFox

It would be interesting to know how many New Year's babes were born to illegals.

In Houston, each and every year same story nothing new

Each State has an Individual Constitution, State Laws, State Borders. In NO WAY should the Federal Govt. BLACKMAIL a State for not doing ITS BIDDING!!!
When this Country was founded, the Initial Purpose of this Countrys Govt. was THE DEFENSE OF THE REPUBLIC!
One would think, BORDER SECURITY WOULD BE INCLUDED?