View Poll Results: HOW CENTRAL IS THE ANCHOR BABY ISSUE TO IMMIGRATION REFORM
- 4. You may not vote on this poll
NOT AT ALL, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE PARENTS ARE LEGAL OR NOT
A CORE ISSUE THAT IS KEY AND CENTRAL TO ANY TRUE AND MEANINGFUL REFORM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
- 09-10-2011, 12:16 PM #1
Anchor Babies and The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitutio
The American Resistance
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
"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."
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
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.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation '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.'
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 8USCSĂŸ1401, 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.
Source: http://www.theamericanresistance.com/is ... abies.html
Last edited by HAPPY2BME; 03-13-2012 at 08:02 AM.U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: GUARANTEES AMERICA FROM INVASION!
- 09-10-2011, 12:54 PM #2
There are three, very efficient, and very well known solutions to stopping illegal immigration from Mexico. None of which the US government is willing to do, for fear it will upset the underground economy or the new political monster now growing in the United States, namely illegal aliens from Mexico.
Here they are:
1: Convict and imprison employers of illegal aliens.
2: End anchor baby automatic citizenship.
3: Build and patrol an effective physical wall the entire length of the 1,969 mile long Mexican border.U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: GUARANTEES AMERICA FROM INVASION!
- 09-10-2011, 01:20 PM #3
Originally Posted by HAPPY2BME
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
- somewhere near Mexico I reckon!
- 09-10-2011, 09:20 PM #4