Thread: WA State Republican Party Adopts No Anchor Baby Platform

Andrew Garber, Seattle Times, May 28, 2006


YAKIMA—In an unexpected move, the state Republican Party on Saturday adopted a platform that states children of illegal immigrants should not be allowed to become United States citizens.

The platform, at least with respect to the children of illegal immigrants, goes further than measures currently under consideration in the Congress. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizes citizenship for all persons born in the United States.

The state party struck a more strident tone on the issue than President Bush’s approach.

But state Republican Party Chairwoman Diane Tebelius said she believes the party’s position reflects how Washington voters feel.

“I think voters realize immigration is a problem and are trying to grapple with solutions to the illegal-immigration problem,” she said. “This is what our platform says, and we’ll see what happens in Congress.”

{snip}

Delegates arguing in favor of the move complained about the cost to hospitals where illegal immigrants have their children. “Once they have babies, they can get on welfare and all sorts of stuff,” said one delegate supporting the proposal.

Also, the delegates Saturday approved a position that calls for millions of workers here illegally to leave the United States in order to apply for a guest-worker program.

“If someone breaks into your home, they’re not a guest,” said the delegate who sponsored the amendment. “If they break into your country, they’re not a guest.”


Hmmm...what was it all our opposition has always said about illegals getting welfare? They said they can't get welfare, but here you have a government official saying it is happening!!!

I think it would be a good idea to research just exactly what children born to illegal aliens are entitled to....I doubt welfare is the case as even children born to legal immigrants were not and may still not be entitled to welfare. Some programs are available to the children of illegal aliens born here such as WIC, but beyond that I am not sure....let's do some research about this. One thing an illegal alien is not entitled to is a job so let's boycott businesses that employ them and make it known to the employer that he/she is violating current federal law. Without a job they can't buy food, pay rent etc.....and what's wrong with that? Who says we don't have the power to make things the way they should be? Si, se puede....yes, we can.

From the way this article reads, their anchor babies are in entitled to nothing.

http://idexer.com/citizenship.htm

The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
By P.A. Madison
Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
Last updated 4/18/06

We well know what federal law says on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the limits of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the Constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the Constitutions Citizenship Clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no Constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.

We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." This can be referred to as the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone--and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term "limits" rather than "jurisdiction" since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries, reach of law or complete allegiance to the United States.
It is important to understand what the text of the clause actually says: subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and not any particular State jurisdiction. This is why laws at the time were written to include both limits and jurisdiction of the United States when speaking of aliens. Take for example U.S. title XXX of 1875, sec 2165 where it states: "Any alien who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States..."
Here the law makes the distinction between simply residing in the United States and being under the jurisdiction of the federal government. This simply means that residing in the United States does not automatically put an alien under the jurisdiction of the United States. The reason mainly has to do with the fact the US Constitution does not give the federal government jurisdiction over a resident residing within a State -- only the States themselves was given this sole jurisdictional role.

It’s also equally important to understand that there is only one path for which an alien can come under the jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of citizenship: Through the process of naturalization that, among other things, requires a person to renounce all allegiance to their country of origin. The Fourteenth Amendment framers did not recognize as a matter of law that an alien giving birth to a child within the limits United States, is by itself, an act of naturalization on the part of the mother. This is because the naturalization of aliens is a process of rules set forth in naturalization laws, and not something an individual can accomplish through their own acts outside of these rules of law.
The principle behind birthright is the same as it was before and after the adoption of the 14th amendment: Only a citizen can make a citizen through the process of childbirth. Any other avenue to citizenship requires an act of naturalization under naturalization laws or perhaps, by treaty. President Lincoln's Attorney General, Edward Bates, wrote a opinion dated November 29, 1862 that stated: "The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, it is, in fact, made by them."
We are fortuante to have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the Citizenship Clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:
Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.[1]
One significant highlight about what Sen. Howard says above is that he regards the clause as simply declaratory of the "law of the land already" and is a virtue of "natural law" and "national law." Why this is significant is because some have mistakenly argued that the Citizenship Clause was somehow rooted in Common Law.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment gives us the definition of what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means under the Fourteenth Amendment:
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]
Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:
Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]
In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the Constitution:
[Now], all this amendment [Citizenship Clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]
No doubt in the Senate as to what the Citizenship Clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:
In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an embassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]
The reason the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was chosen for the Citizenship Clause instead of the civil rights bill language that read "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed" was because Howard feared States could eventually impose a tax on Indian's, making them eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth. Because of the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" required direct allegiance to the United States, Indian's would be disqualified because they owed their allegiance to their respective tribes which in return were considered foreign nations. In 1872 Sen. James K. Kelly sums up the clause and national law on the subject in the most clearest language that anyone could understand when he said "in order to be a citizen of the United States he must been not only be born within the United States, but born within the the allegiance of the United States."[7]
Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...
Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in celebration after taking the American Citizenship Oath.
It's noteworthy to point out a Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), where the court completely discarded the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause scope and intent by replacing it with their own invented Citizenship Clause. The court in effect, ruled that Fourteenth Amendment had elevated citizenship to a new constitutionally protected right, and thus, prevents the cancellation of a persons citizenship unless they assent.

Unfortunately for the court, Sen. Howard effectively shoots down this feeble attempt to replace his clause with their own homegrown Citizenship Clause. Firstly, Howard finds no incompatibility with expatriation and the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause when he says: "I take it for granted that when a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited."

Secondly, Sen. Howard expressly stated, "I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me and hold lands and deal in every other way that a citizen of the United States has a right to do."
The question begs: If Howard had no intention of passing a sweeping act of naturalization--how does the court elevate Howard's Citizenship Clause to a new constitutionally protected right that cannot be taken away since this would certainly require a sweeping act with explicit language to enumerate such a new Constitutional right? Remember, the court cannot create new rights that are not already expressly granted by the Constitution.

A third problem for the court is the fact both Howard and Bingham viewed the Citizenship Clause as simply "declaratory" of what they regarded "as the law of the land already." This then requires flights of fantasy to elevate Howard's express purpose of inserting the Citizenship Clause as simply removing "all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States," and not to elevate citizenship to a new protected Constitutional right. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right as say the right to freedom of religion is, and therefore, can be taken away just as any other privilege can.
James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:
When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[8]

What does it all mean?

In a nutshell, it means this: The Constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty–then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?
The framers succeeded in their desire to define what persons are, or are not, citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
[1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
[2]. Id. at 2893
[3]. Id. at 2895
[4]. Id. at 2893
[5]. Id. at 2897
[6]. Id. at 1291
[7]. Congressional Globe, 42nd Congress (1872) pg. 2796
[8]. James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.

Permission is granted to use, copy or republish this article in its entirely only

Only the Legal Citizens of this country understand this. Lawyers, Judges and Politicians just dont seem to get it or just out right cant read.

Originally Posted by Prolegal7

I think it would be a good idea to research just exactly what children born to illegal aliens are entitled to....I doubt welfare is the case as even children born to legal immigrants were not and may still not be entitled to welfare. Some programs are available to the children of illegal aliens born here such as WIC, but beyond that I am not sure....

It probably depends on the state, but I know that years ago a family with children could get something called AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children).

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I think you're wrong about welfare benefits not being offered to immigrants, because my local welfare office here in Nevada requires their employees to speak Spanish and one would thus deduce that they are serving immigrants from Mexico who speak Spanish.

Also, since a child born in the U.S. to an illegal alien is just as much a U.S. citizen as you or I, thanks to the misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, I'm sure the child would get some kind of benefits.

When Newt Gingrich was in the congress there was a tremendous overall of our welfare system which denied benefits across the board to even American citizens. Certainly there are those who still draw welfare, but the illegal alien population is definitely shut out unless they have managed to utilize fraudulent documentation to obtain benefits and I don't doubt this possibility one bit. Fortunately REAL ID is just around the corner.

So, based on the research that has been done by the authority cited in ConcernedCitizen's post, and I'm sure a lot of other sources that could be cited, why doesn't someone file a suit in court to contest the citizenship of some anchor baby??

In Oregon, the anchor babies are entitled to any and all benefits that my kids are entitled to. When their mothers apply for food stamps for them, the offices in this state give according not only to the fact that there are children born here, but also for whomever else is in the household. The state accepts the Matricula Consular card and allows them to get Oregon ID/licenses, then that proves enough for the state, that they are ok here, and they give them help.

The reason I am aware of this is my 23 year old daughter is living with us, she is getting health care for her 1 year old, and when I have gone into the state office (which is seperate from the county run WIC office), there are all sorts of Latino women there with lots of kids, and not one of them speaks English, which means, they most likely are illegal, and their kids are obvious anchor babies.

Oregonians for Immigration Reform has been working hard to force Oregons government to stop recognizing the Matricula card at DMV which in turn makes them look like legals and they then get welfare benefits.

Comprende? It is illegal for the state to do it, and not be checking legal status, but they are doing it, at least here, and I bet many other places.

Also, with the ILLEGALY DOCUMENTED, they're able to get welfare from not one state, as in my area - tri state - but they scoot back and forth taking from 2 states.

Documents can be purchased easily and are by many.

CONCERNEDCIT, I heard this very argument made by a well known Constitutional Attorney. Ever since, I realized the sham that's been perpetrated upon us.

THANX for the great post. Some of this info is new to me

Originally Posted by Prolegal7

When Newt Gingrich was in the congress there was a tremendous overall of our welfare system which denied benefits across the board to even American citizens. Certainly there are those who still draw welfare, but the illegal alien population is definitely shut out unless they have managed to utilize fraudulent documentation to obtain benefits and I don't doubt this possibility one bit. Fortunately REAL ID is just around the corner.

I remember when welfare reform happen. At that time one of my sisters in law was a career welfare recipent and once the system was reformed, she had no choice but to get off her lazy butt and get herself a job! When her welfare checks stopped, she stopped having babies!

But it now appears that the Illegals have certain privilages that are denied to Americans.
The government cuts off Americans from becoming life time welfare dependents, but they allow Illegals to come here, and suck the system dry at the tax payers expense .