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

Originally Posted by roundabout

tiredofapathy wrote,

Perhaps establishing a Constitutional Amendment which also automatically assigns citizenship of a newborn to the country of origin or lawful residency of the mother is in order?

I agree with the rest of your post, but, on this issue here, should we not demand a reading of the 14th as it exists concerning birthright citizenship?

My understanding is that automatic birthright citizenship does not exist as written. Apathy and ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.

Why ask for anything new when the law is already there? Seems dangerous.

That's what some of the senators here in AZ have been saying. They are putting it up for re-interpretation.

Originally Posted by redpony353

It is not enough to end birthright citizenship. We also need to end chain migration. Otherwise some will try to pay women to have their baby so the baby can give them legal status. There should be no chain migration. Each person who wants to come to this country should have to apply as an individual.

They don't have to pay an American woman to have their baby. A lot of hispanic men will find some white trash gal who has no self esteem, marry her and have a gazillion babies with TWICE as much anchor power as if they would have married another illegal. I have seen it time and time again!

Originally Posted by elpasoborn

Originally Posted by tiredofapathy

Originally Posted by roundabout

tiredofapathy wrote,

Perhaps establishing a Constitutional Amendment which also automatically assigns citizenship of a newborn to the country of origin or lawful residency of the mother is in order?

I agree with the rest of your post, but, on this issue here, should we not demand a reading of the 14th as it exists concerning birthright citizenship?

My understanding is that automatic birthright citizenship does not exist as written. Apathy and ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.

Why ask for anything new when the law is already there? Seems dangerous.

While I am not a Constitutional scholar, I tend to think writing a new Amendment which clarifies the 14th will be superior to attempting reversal of the Supreme Court decision that misinterpreted it. A liberal tilt to the Judicial seems to me far more dangerous.

But how would we be assured that any new Amendment would be the FINAL word?

Easy, the law shood state "If you are an illegal alien in the US, your babies will NOT be US citizens!!!!!!!!"

Loads of lies there by the AP (Anti-American Propagandists), if I lived in New York or DC I would be in front of their offices protesting every day against their lies.

The AP CEO is Dean Singleton, who also owns the Denver Post and many other left leaning newspapers.

Originally Posted by roundabout

tiredofapathy wrote,

Perhaps establishing a Constitutional Amendment which also automatically assigns citizenship of a newborn to the country of origin or lawful residency of the mother is in order?

I agree with the rest of your post, but, on this issue here, should we not demand a reading of the 14th as it exists concerning birthright citizenship?

My understanding is that automatic birthright citizenship does not exist as written. Apathy and ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.

Why ask for anything new when the law is already there? Seems dangerous.

And you are correct. However, we do need a law that instructs the US government and states not to grant citizenship because they've been doing so I believe in direct violation of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment because these people aren't subectt to our jurisdiction, they're subject to the jurisdiction of their home country which is why every time something doesn't go their way here they can find safe haven in their Consulate or Embassy just as we do when we're in foreign countries.

As to amending the 14th Amendment, I also don't think it's necessary.

I'd like to see the difference between their Embassy compared to let's say Norway's Embassy.(Their, line down the block)

The imprudent justification for this radical constitutional revision is to prevent the phantom phenomenon of "anchor babies" that supposedly threatens the nation. But the ugly term "anchor baby" derives from a fundamental fiction. There is no self-interested incentive for immigrants to have babies in the United States because a child must turn 21 before being able to sponsor anyone for permanent residence. Hence, no immigration benefit can accrue to the parent of a child born on U.S. soil for at least 21 years.

In short, claims that the citizenship clause is a magnet for illegal immigration are gross exaggerations at best, cynical political pandering at worst.

Ending birthright citizenship is thus a solution in search of a problem. The simplicity and irrevocability of the Constitution's guarantee of fundamental liberty to children born on our soil was, and is, the promise of America. To turn our backs on that promise by repealing the 14th Amendment is the equivalent of killing a fly with a grenade launcher. Ending birthright citizenship would not fix our broken immigration system. It would only make matters worse.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/ ... ystem.html

Originally Posted by elpasoborn

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.

Most babies of illegal aliens can and do receive citizenship in their parents home country, making them dual citizens with primary allegiance to a foreign power, something the 14th Amendment authors specifically didn't want.

Bowman wrote,

Most babies of illegal aliens can and do receive citizenship in their parents home country, making them dual citizens with primary allegiance to a foreign power, something the 14th Amendment authors specifically didn't want.

Bota-bing, bota-boom! Leave it to Bowman to pull out some more constitutional insight concerning original intent.

The verdict is getting mighty clear.............................guilty in the 1st degree of dereliction of duty, treasonous behavior, and malfeasance. Defendants should be executed to the fullest extent of the law!

And Wonder Boy's allegiance is where? The "Hope" in Hope and Change takes on a new meaning.................like I sure "hope" the dolts don't see through me and figure this out!

Originally Posted by MontereySherry

I am getting so sick of hearing "growing Latino vote". The Hispanic Community, the Latino Community. No wonder they are becomming more arrogant and in our face.

I understand how you feel.
please, do not judge just all equally, many Hispanic we respect the laws.