Thread: Born of Mexican emissaries, anchor babies are not U.S.

Here's more proof:

http://ccir.net/COLUMNISTS/CRAWFORD-BRU ... 16BC_.html

"The intent of the framers is express and clear, as recorded in the May 30, 1866 edition of the Congressional Globe. Senator Jacob Howard, author of the clause, 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 ...".

Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, elaborated:

"What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means ... It cannot be said of any (one) who owes allegiance ... to some other government that he is 'subject' to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Five critical words here proscribe automatic citizenship - "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof...". Those who enter illegally, in other words, not under the aegis of the United States government, are therefore not under its jurisdiction.

The "automatic" citizenship conferred on children of illegal aliens is the result of overreaching judges who read into the constitution what they wished it to mean, in defiance and contempt of both the intent of the framers and the understanding of the framers' intent by those who voted to ratify it.

The citizenship danger has been worsening since the U.S. Supreme Court first misinterpreted the clause over a century ago. Foreign nationals have discovered they can take advantage of the expansive interpretations of judges by producing what are known as anchor babies - anchor because a baby's faux citizenship complicates the deportation proceedings for its parents. Moreover, these children also serve a source of taxpayer largesse because they become eligible for welfare, housing, food stamps, aid to families with dependent children, WIC, etc. Once 21, the counterfeit citizens can then petition to have multi-generational families immigrate under the pretense of reunification.

As the founding fathers observed, original intent is crucial to understanding and enforcing the constitution. Thomas Rutherforth said, "The intention of the legislator is the natural measure of the extent of the law." James Wilson, second to James Madison in the drafting of our constitution, said, "The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it." Chief Justice John Marshall, in Ogden v. Sanders, said the words of the Constitution were not to be "extended to objects not ... contemplated by the framers ...". His contemporary, Associate Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, said the Court was "...not at liberty to add one jot of power to the national government, beyond what the people have granted by the Constitution."

The intent of the 14th Amendment's authors are clear. As Sen. Howard pointed out, the children of ambassadors do not become citizens. American Indians did not gain the right to become citizens until the 1920s, and then it wasn't automatic. It was their choice."

[quote="MinutemanCDC_SC"][quote="Felipe Calderón, Presidente of Mexico"]MEXICO CITY, Sept. 2, 2007 — “I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.â€

You know the Supreme Court in Ark vs. US (which gave citizenship to immigrant babies) also: "excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The majority held that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[4]) - and that since none of these conditions applied to Wong's situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act).

The bold underlined text above is what's wrong when these so-called judges or whomever decides these cases. They take that part and focus only on that part leaving the "Born of at least 1 US citizen" out of their argument. They purposely select certain text they know will create an even larger misconception when arguing and take the focus off the true issue at hand. You can read the entire section which includes these 2 seperate rules (which the 2 above in bold are technically the same thing), and at the same time, you can mix them together with "Born of at least 1 US citizen"to make them seem to be a continuing sentence. I believe this is what happened in the above case.

Originally Posted by socal

!

BTW, years ago I found exactly this explanation of the 14th Amendment in Library of Congress online. It said that the sentence "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", is there to exclude children of diplomats from the 14th Am.. And what foreign diplomats and illegal aliens have in common? Neither are subject to the jurisdiction of United States. Unfortunately I no longer have the link.[/size]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright ... of_America

Senator Howard, who wrote (the constitution's) Citizenship clause commented,

"This amendment which I have clarified is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already..[It] does 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 person. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."[4]

There's an underlying code that specifically disqualifies the children of diplomats,

Current (as of 2006) United States Federal law defines ten categories of person who are United States citizens from birth.(8 U.S.C. § 1401) Among them are

* "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
* "a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe" (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).
* "a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States"
* "INA: ACT 302 - Sec. 302. (8 U.S.C. § 1402) All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth".[6]

People born in most of the territories of the United States are also citizens from birth. As of 2008, the only exception is that people born in American Samoa are only U.S. nationals at birth and not citizens, though they may later reside in the U.S. and apply for citizenship.

This is what Ron Paul was talking about in the primaries - he wants to amend the US Code to specifically exclude anchor babies. He believes it would not require an amendment.

Historical Analysis of the Meaning of the 14th Amendment's First Section
By P.A. Madison
Last updated on October 8, 2008

http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14 ... _guide.htm

Why U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Can Never Be Considered Settled Birthright Law
http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_w ... dered.html

Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance

By P.A. Madison, The Federalist Blog

December 17, 2005

http://www.cairco.org/articles/art2005dec17b.html

What “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereofâ€

What people fail to realize is in the times the constitution was written, those men had no intent on creating rules or laws that had hidden meaning, or open-ended statements that lead to arguments like rules and laws of today. What they wrote is what they wrote. Nothing more, nothing less.

It should be taken verbatim as it was surely intended. There never should be and never should have been any debate or argument about the true meaning. It is as clear as could be if you read it in the manner which it was written. What happens now, is people place too much thought on the "what ifs", and that is why it's left open to interpretation by people who want to change it.