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

Originally Posted by Bowman

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.

Ditto...in a perverted and sick twist of meaning, the very people the creators of the 14th Amendment intended to deny citizenship to, are in fact now receiving citizenship!

Why would there have been specific language in the 14th Amendment to deny citizenship to the offspring of a foreign diplomat (who would have been here legally, educated and likely and capable of supporting his child)? Reason being it was presumed the loyalty to the United States of such offspring would be questionable because of their parents.

But somehow along the way, conveying citizenship to the spawn of someone who violated our sovereignty in the middle of the night and was fortunate to go undetected until giving birth, seems to pass muster in regards to intent because the illegal invading masses have complete loyality to the United States, that of which a foreign diplomat does not.

Sheer lunacy!

How could the child of the foreign diplomat be any different that the spawn of an illegal invader in respect to loyalty to this country. Both are presumed to have no loyalty to this country for the very same reasons.

It's the parents!

So the next time you see millions of anchor babies marching down our streets, demanding citizenship for their illegal bretheren who continue to squat in this country - all while waiving their beloved rag of mexico- think about the 14th Amendment and why it was that such people were never intended to receive citizenship in the first place.

It's the parents!

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Why would there have been specific language in the 14th Amendment to deny citizenship to the offspring of a foreign diplomat (who would have been here legally, educated and likely and capable of supporting his child)? Reason being it was presumed the loyalty to the United States of such offspring would be questionable because of their parents.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was not only to deny citizenship to foreign diplomat babies, but also to American Indian tribal members, who at the time we were in armed conflict with. American Indians who swore allegiance to their tribes did not receive birthright citizenship until 1924 by an Act of Congress. Since no similar act was ever passed giving birthright citizenship to illegal alien babies who owe allegiance to their parents country, it seems they were Unconstitutionally granted US citizenship.

Originally Posted by Bowman

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Why would there have been specific language in the 14th Amendment to deny citizenship to the offspring of a foreign diplomat (who would have been here legally, educated and likely and capable of supporting his child)? Reason being it was presumed the loyalty to the United States of such offspring would be questionable because of their parents.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was not only to deny citizenship to foreign diplomat babies, but also to American Indian tribal members, who at the time we were in armed conflict with. American Indians who swore allegiance to their tribes did not receive birthright citizenship until 1924 by an Act of Congress. Since no similar act was ever passed giving birthright citizenship to illegal alien babies who owe allegiance to their parents country, it seems they were Unconstitutionally granted US citizenship.

Excellent point Bowman! It does appear as if the conveyance of citizenship to anchor babies is with out a doubt Unconstitutional, especially when viewed from the perspective of the American Indian.

It took an Act of Congress to convey citizenship to the offspring of American Indians, but illegal invaders were simply handed citizenship.

How would their advocates ever explain that dichotomy?

Originally Posted by light

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

Hispanic Americans are just that. What we're so strongly against is illegals.

In the context of the 14th Amendment, the language should be clear to anyone, but if more clarification is needed, we need only look to statements made by the people who wrote that amendment. They were cystal clear about the amendment not applying to aliens, because those folks are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. In another current thread appears the information that the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “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.â€

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Originally Posted by Bowman

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Why would there have been specific language in the 14th Amendment to deny citizenship to the offspring of a foreign diplomat (who would have been here legally, educated and likely and capable of supporting his child)? Reason being it was presumed the loyalty to the United States of such offspring would be questionable because of their parents.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was not only to deny citizenship to foreign diplomat babies, but also to American Indian tribal members, who at the time we were in armed conflict with. American Indians who swore allegiance to their tribes did not receive birthright citizenship until 1924 by an Act of Congress. Since no similar act was ever passed giving birthright citizenship to illegal alien babies who owe allegiance to their parents country, it seems they were Unconstitutionally granted US citizenship.

Excellent point Bowman! It does appear as if the conveyance of citizenship to anchor babies is with out a doubt Unconstitutional, especially when viewed from the perspective of the American Indian.

It took an Act of Congress to convey citizenship to the offspring of American Indians, but illegal invaders were simply handed citizenship.

How would their advocates ever explain that dichotomy?

They may say simply, "The Supreme Court made it so."

Now do I have it wrong that the Congress has no authority over the Judicial? Congressmen can demand a "re-interpretation" all they want, but it doesn't mean they can make it so.

I'll be one dancing for joy if the 14th amendment is read correctly. I'd be even more thrilled if by some miracle they put a 10 year check in place that if you were given citizenship illegally by the gross misinterpretation it would be repealed and you would lose your US citizenship status.

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.

I totally agree 110%. I even think we should put a moratorium on all new immigration for 5 to 10 years until all these illegal aliens are out of the country, our borders and ports of entry are tight as a drum, not one public entity or 501 C 3 tax exempt spends one dime on illegal aliens or their cause in any way shape or form, automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens is prohibited by federal statute, states are specifically authorized to enforce US immigration law as well as pass their own parallel versions, and federal law restricts new immigration to less than 100,000 per year and only in years where the unemployment rate is 2% or less and the broad-based U6 rate is 5% or less for 6 consecutive months.

Originally Posted by roundabout

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.

Right O, roundabout. And hokey is a good thing when we're talking about the US Constitution.

Originally Posted by stevetheroofer

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

Who wants to repeal the 14th Amendment?! The people who want to end automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens want to end this practice. Most want to do so with a federal statute, not repealing the 14th Amendment.

Originally Posted by Syanis

. . I'd be even more thrilled if by some miracle they put a 10 year check in place that if you were given citizenship illegally by the gross misinterpretation it would be repealed and you would lose your US citizenship status.

That would be nice, but it will never happen. The Supreme Court will never permit citizenship that was given in good faith to be rescinded without other extenuating circumstances.