Thread: No More Anchor Babies

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=50602

No more anchor babies

Posted: June 13, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

I agree with those who say, regarding the illegal-alien debate in this country, that first we must secure the border, then – and only then – can we afford to debate what we do with those lawbreaking trespassers already in our midst.

But there is one related issue that needs to be examined as quickly as possible.

It doesn't need to be, as President Bush might suggest, part of a "comprehensive immigration-reform plan." It just needs to be examined, debated and resolved under the rule of law and through the will of the people – as all important public-policy issues should be dealt with in a free society.


I'm talking about "anchor babies."

What are anchor babies?

If you live in the Southwest, you know what they are. For the benefit of those in other regions of the country who are not yet immersed in the special lingo surrounding millions and millions of illegal aliens in America, anchor babies are children born in this country of illegal-alien parents.

Currently, by fiat, these children are treated as citizens of the U.S. simply because they were born here.

After all, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, in part: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

For many years, that was good enough for me. I saw no reason to challenge the Constitution, which seemed to be clear on the definition of citizenship for all those born in the U.S. – no matter the circumstances.

Yet, that is not the case. Under closer scrutiny, we find the U.S. Supreme Court – long before it turned to activist decisions in the modern era – had ruled the 14th Amendment was, by no means, absolute on this point.

Here, in fact, is what the court ruled in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case in 1898: "The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance. … The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual, and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because they were not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king."

Now I'm no lawyer, so maybe that's why I can read this clear Supreme Court decision and conclude that under this case law, children born in this country of illegal-alien parents are not citizens of the United States.

I don't think we need to change the law.

I just think we need to do what the American Civil Liberties Union would do if they liked this case – publicize it and demand that the "law of the land" be enforced.

Not only is the federal government neglecting its sworn duty to protect the citizens of this country by guarding the border, not only is the federal government neglecting its duty to deport millions of illegal aliens already here, but it is also neglecting its duty to recognize that hundreds of thousands – maybe millions – of people born in the U.S. to illegal-alien parents are not U.S. citizens because they and their parents were not under the jurisdiction and obedience of the government of the U.S. when that occurred.

Right after we close the border, let's turn to the issue of anchor babies. They are called "anchors" for a reason. Once they are born here, they anchor entire families of foreign invaders because of their natural attachment to the child. After all, it would seem cruel and heartless to attempt to deport the parents and siblings of U.S. citizens.

The good news is anchor babies are no more U.S. citizens than their parents.

Boy, wouldn't organizations like LULAC, MALDEF, PRLDEF et al flip out if the anchors got pulled? Seems there has been a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment.

Sounds reasonable to challange that for sure. Sure would put a much needed halt to the abuses of welfare and the heart wrenching "how can you break up a family" stories. May also put a crimp in the "roots in the community" part of the plan. Coz personally I think that's what Bush would use more than anything as a reason to allow them to stay.

Crazybird, the claim that families are broken up is hogwash relative to doing things the right way....illegals break up their families by coming here illegally and then expect us to accept a reuinification on our soil....well, they aren't entitled to a job here and anyone who is foolish enough to provide housing for them or a job can pay the price when "D" day comes.

Congressman Steve King has a Bill that addresses this very issue.

The Anchor baby is a HUGE part of the illegals plan to take over the USA, imagine if the abuse of 14th Amendment was no longer available to them.

Originally Posted by ConcernedCitizen

Congressman Steve King has a Bill that addresses this very issue.

The Anchor baby is a HUGE part of the illegals plan to take over the USA, imagine if the abuse of 14th Amendment was no longer available to them.

CONCERNED
would you please post his bill here so that we can keep up, lol.

Seems there has been a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment.

Yes, there has been a misinterpretation all right, but it is Joseph Farah who has done the misinterpretation. If you read the actual decision of U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, you will find that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of anchor babies.

Link to US v Ark: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 49_ZO.html

From the decision:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Personally I think the court got this one wrong, but they've also gottten it wrong with US v. Miller, Wickard v. Filburn, Gonzales v. Raich & Kelo v. New London

The supreme court decision was given over 100 years ago and matters have changed substantially since then:

GRAY, J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


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

169 U.S. 649

United States v. Wong Kim Ark
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

No. 18 Argued: March 5, 8, 1897 --- Decided: March 28, 1898

The supreme court decision was given over 100 years ago and matters have changed substantially since then:

Yes, they have changed with the original decision was handed down. Until either the issue is revisited by the courts, or the 14th Amendment is stricken or revised its gonna stay that way it is and anchor babies are gonna be citizens.

I don't like it though. I think it CAN be worked around with appropriate legislation for deportation, something along the lines of minors citizens under the age of emancipation go home with their parents, minors over the age of emancipation but under majority may chose to go with parents or stay in the U.S. Those who leave may later apply for admittance under immigration law if they chose, but no special favors for 'em.

Such may not pass constitutional muster, but IANAL nor do I pretend to be one on the 'Net

The children born to illegal aliens may be considered as American citizens, but their parents aren't and we do not have to employ them....how long do think such subversive scum can live off of WIC?