Thread: Bill O'Reilly apparently doesn't know the anchor baby rules

Originally Posted by CountFloyd

Originally Posted by alisab

Thanks, I will look it up and try to word it; then email it to O'Reilly.

Once we get past this shamnesty, this is an issue we all really need to pursue, after the wall, after enforcement, after mass deportation of criminals!!!

Yes, it would solve a lot of problems to be rid of it.

Unfortunately, the politics of that ever happening are very unlikely.

Ron Paul is looking to get rid of this amendement.

It has actually be argued that this is infact NOT what the 14th means.

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Key word is Jurisdiction. Does the US Governemnt really have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants?

Was not until June 15th, 1982 that Illegals were able to be citizens (Plyler vs. Doe). Isn't this about the time that illegal immigration exploded?
This decision needs to be revisited!

The dissenting minority agreed in principle that it was unwise for illegal alien children to be denied a public education, but the four dissenting justices argued that the Texas law was not so objectionable as to be unconstitutional; that this issue ought to be dealt with through the legislative process; that "[t]he Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem"; and that the majority was overstepping its bounds by seeking "to do Congress' job for it, compensating for congressional inaction".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

Hispanic_Guy wrote:

I don't get it isn't that legal migration.........?

I believe the visa CountFloyd is referring to is for a temporary visit, not permanent legal migration. IMO, no baby born to a temporary visitor should have citizenship automatically bestowed.

BrightNail wrote:

Ron Paul is looking to get rid of this amendement.

Ron Paul is not necessary to get this done. There is already a bill in the House Committee on the Judiciary that will correct the problem. Check it out:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... 01940:@@@P

If your representative is not a co-sponsor to this legislation, give him or her a call and ask why not. The more co-sponsors, the better chance it has of moving out of the Committee on the Judiciary. With the Democrats in control of the House, this bills chances are extremely slim. However, any bill with 200 co-sponsors can hardly be ignored - CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE WITH BILL DESCRIPTION AND ASK HIM TO SIGN ON.

A baby born in the U.S. should be under the Jurisdication of the same country the parents are under the Jurisdiction of especially if the parents are illegal!!

The amendment has been interpreted incorrectly. If someone is not a legal immigrant or citizen, the child is NOT supposed to be born a citizen. The "jurisdiction" point.

I don't know WHEN this got screwed up, and why it was interpreted this way in the first place.

Originally Posted by meltdown

well I say we hurry up and make the US a third world turd hole , then no one will want to be an anchor baby

Just give it a couple more years...

cousinsal wrote:

I don't know WHEN this got screwed up, and why it was interpreted this way in the first place.

You can thank the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by cousinsal

The amendment has been interpreted incorrectly. If someone is not a legal immigrant or citizen, the child is NOT supposed to be born a citizen. The "jurisdiction" point.

I don't know WHEN this got screwed up, and why it was interpreted this way in the first place.

read my post a few up.. with links.. it give the history of the "decision". Even the June 15th 1982 decision has been skewed. Nothing directly says they are legal citzens. Much is implied or infered.

Originally Posted by CountFloyd

Originally Posted by alisab

O.K. I am totally ignorant on this myself, but O'Reilly was having a discussion just now on anchor babies and how American's don't like the rule that once you are born here you are automatically a Citizen.

I know we have had this discussion before, but this is truly in the Constitution right? Over time, people have twisted what the Constitution really says???

Someone who knows the law and who could put it into words should email O'Reilly to explain that the anchor baby law is truly NOT in the Constitution.

It's in the Constitution, the 14th amendment specifically.

The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. What we think it says is irrelevant.

Don't know about the Supreme Court, but the 14th does NOT state that at all. Only LEGAL aliens have that right.