Thread: 'Anchor Baby' Constitutional Amendment to Face Scrutiny in C

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_ ... ntent.html


ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT

/9e congress don't know what the hell they want they don't Know the Left from the right hand any more , worry about Our country Not the other country w e are the voice of American Not the Mexico .all I see congress Is going to do this & that you don't know what the hell any one of doing you all are just worry about your seat . if you all worry about Our Country . a sMuch as you did your seat you be ok . we don't want the Illegal Immigrant IN our country why we everyone from all over In the USA . look what happen to NYC 9/11 . & yes we are still figthing every day so congress wake the hell up NO Amnesty
No Amnesty do your job

Citizenship Up for Grabs: The Supreme Court and Immigration
By Mark R. Levin
March 2005


"The Constitution does not constitute us as ‘Platonic Guardians’ nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, ‘wisdom,’ or ‘common sense.’ ... We trespass on the assigned function of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when we assume a policymaking role."

— Chief Justice Warren Burger1

If there is one area of law that should be universally understood as being largely outside the purview of the Supreme Court’s social engineering reach, it is immigration. Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.â€

Thanks for the link elpasoborn.

Could I ask a favor? Would you be able to lift the paragraph from the site on the intent of the 14th and place it here?

If I knew how I would.

The paragraph that starts with, The phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof"....

Right above the portion of the page Supreme Court decisions.

If possible, TIA

roundabout...is this what you're referring to?


The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Thank You elpasoborn, Thank You very much!

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

With this interpretation, taken from the tenets of natural law(please forgive me if I am not stating this in complete legalese or in a more masterly manner) not only does this exclude illegal aliens but helps to imply foreign born parents would not have a right to claim children born here with "jurisdiction" of this country. This would include a man sitting in a high office. Honor thy father, comes to mind.

The psychology of Wonder Boy plays out with the foreign born father. Where is the "jurisdiction" of the father? Sympathetic pangs drive the madness.

I know ther are others here that can do more justice to the intent of "the jurisdiction thereof."

Natural law and common sense are blood brothers.......Okay, that might have been just a bit hokey.

End birthright citizenship for children of two foreign parents and change the destiny of a nation headed down the road to ruin.

Exactly! Lord, or lord I hope and pray our government will finally clean up this mess that has been spreading for far too long. This was a highlight to go on the internet today and see this news title.

If congress would pass the no citizenship for anchor babies bill in Jan. they could take the rest of the year off and it would still be a great year for congress.

JohnDoe2 wrote,

f congress would pass he no citizenship for anchor babies bill in Jan. they could take the rest of the year off and it would still be a great year for congress.

I just wish they would have a hearing and debate the intent of the 14th as written. Then they could help to blow away the smoke of the war of that time.

Then we could all sing to the tune of that song,....."I can see clearly now that the smoke is gone,...its gonna be a bright,.. bright,..sun shiny day."