Thread: Detaching the Anchor From Anchor Babies

Detaching the Anchor From Anchor Babies
Email Phyllis Schlafly | Columnist's Archive
Jan.11,2012

It's long overdue for Congress to stop the racket of bringing pregnant women into this country to give birth, receive free medical care and then call their babies U.S. citizens entitled to all American rights and privileges plus generous handouts. Between 300,000 and 400,000 babies are born to illegal aliens in the United States every year, at least 10 percent of all births.

We have tolerated an entire industry called "birth tourism," offering "birth packages" costing thousands of dollars, to import pregnant women from all over the world, Korea to Turkey (12,000 U.S.-born Turkish babies have been arranged since 2003). An electronic billboard in Mexico, advertising the services of an American doctor, proclaims, "Do you want to have your baby in the U.S.?"

The advantages of birthright citizenship are immense. The babies get Medicaid (including birth costs), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and food stamps. Obviously, the baby shares his goodies with his family.

As soon as the child becomes an adult, he can legalize his parents, and bring into the U.S. a foreign-born spouse and any foreign-born siblings. They all can then bring in their own extended families, a policy called chain migration.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has stepped up to this challenge and already has 26 co-sponsors for his bill, H.R. 140, to define citizenship. It states that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment means a baby born in the United States only if one parent is a U.S. citizen, or a lawfully admitted resident alien, or an alien on active duty in the U.S. armed services.

King is not trying to amend the Constitution. He is simply using the 14th Amendment's Section 5, which gives Congress (not the judiciary, not the executive branch) the power to enforce the citizenship clause.

In 1993, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., introduced similar legislation. Bills to limit birthright citizenship to children of U.S. citizens and of aliens who are legal residents have been introduced by other members of Congress every year since.

The amnesty crowd tries to tell us that the 14th Amendment makes automatic citizens out of "all persons" born in the United States, but they conveniently ignore the rest of the sentence. It's not enough to be "born" in the U.S. -- you can claim citizenship only if you are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, overruled the Dred Scott decision wherein the U.S. Supreme Court declared that African-Americans could not be citizens. Those who support court-made law should forever be reminded of Abraham Lincoln's warning that if we accept the supremacy of judges, "the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

The 14th Amendment denied citizenship to American Indians, even though they obviously were "born" in the U.S., because they were subject to the jurisdiction of their tribal governments. Congress did not grant citizenship to American Indians on reservations until 1924, 56 years later.

Babies born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are clearly citizens of their mother's country, so granting U.S. citizenship creates the possibility of dual citizenship, which the United States has never recognized as valid. To become a U.S. citizen, immigrants are required by our law not only to swear allegiance to the United States but also to absolutely renounce any and all allegiance to the nation from which they came.

There is no ambiguity about the solemn oath that all naturalized Americans must take. "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 ... so help me God."

Any naturalized U.S. citizen who claims dual citizenship with his native country betrays his solemn oath. If anchor babies have citizenship in their parents' country, they should not have U.S. citizenship.

Terminating the anchor-baby racket is very popular with the American people. A Rasmussen poll reports that 58 percent oppose it, while only 33 percent favor it.

Now that state legislatures are flexing their muscles, representatives from 14 states unveiled state legislation to clarify who is and who isn't a citizen in those states. The Arizona bill establishes that state law parallels the definition of citizenship in the 14th Amendment, and that a U.S. citizen is, "for the purposes of this statute, a person who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty."

The Arizona bill, introduced by Sen. Russell Pearce and Rep. John Kavanagh, would create two kinds of state birth certificates. One would be for children of citizens and the other for children of illegal aliens.

http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisS ... page/full/

I refuse to pay for this .. no more will I give up my hard earned pay for this crap

Good article and one which all Americans must heed and heed well and quick.

Good article. Those "birth packages" are filled with American taxpayers dollars, taking the food and the resources that belong to American families right out of them and their childrens' mouths...

Originally Posted by stevetheroofer

Detaching the Anchor From Anchor Babies
Email Phyllis Schlafly | Columnist's Archive
Jan.11,2012

It's long overdue for Congress to stop the racket of bringing pregnant women into this country to give birth, receive free medical care and then call their babies U.S. citizens entitled to all American rights and privileges plus generous handouts. Between 300,000 and 400,000 babies are born to illegal aliens in the United States every year, at least 10 percent of all births.

We have tolerated an entire industry called "birth tourism," offering "birth packages" costing thousands of dollars, to import pregnant women from all over the world, Korea to Turkey (12,000 U.S.-born Turkish babies have been arranged since 2003). An electronic billboard in Mexico, advertising the services of an American doctor, proclaims, "Do you want to have your baby in the U.S.?"

The advantages of birthright citizenship are immense. The babies get Medicaid (including birth costs), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and food stamps. Obviously, the baby shares his goodies with his family.

As soon as the child becomes an adult, he can legalize his parents, and bring into the U.S. a foreign-born spouse and any foreign-born siblings. They all can then bring in their own extended families, a policy called chain migration.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has stepped up to this challenge and already has 26 co-sponsors for his bill, H.R. 140, to define citizenship. It states that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment means a baby born in the United States only if one parent is a U.S. citizen, or a lawfully admitted resident alien, or an alien on active duty in the U.S. armed services.

King is not trying to amend the Constitution. He is simply using the 14th Amendment's Section 5, which gives Congress (not the judiciary, not the executive branch) the power to enforce the citizenship clause.

In 1993, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., introduced similar legislation. Bills to limit birthright citizenship to children of U.S. citizens and of aliens who are legal residents have been introduced by other members of Congress every year since.

The amnesty crowd tries to tell us that the 14th Amendment makes automatic citizens out of "all persons" born in the United States, but they conveniently ignore the rest of the sentence. It's not enough to be "born" in the U.S. -- you can claim citizenship only if you are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, overruled the Dred Scott decision wherein the U.S. Supreme Court declared that African-Americans could not be citizens. Those who support court-made law should forever be reminded of Abraham Lincoln's warning that if we accept the supremacy of judges, "the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

The 14th Amendment denied citizenship to American Indians, even though they obviously were "born" in the U.S., because they were subject to the jurisdiction of their tribal governments. Congress did not grant citizenship to American Indians on reservations until 1924, 56 years later.

Babies born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are clearly citizens of their mother's country, so granting U.S. citizenship creates the possibility of dual citizenship, which the United States has never recognized as valid. To become a U.S. citizen, immigrants are required by our law not only to swear allegiance to the United States but also to absolutely renounce any and all allegiance to the nation from which they came.

There is no ambiguity about the solemn oath that all naturalized Americans must take. "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 ... so help me God."

Any naturalized U.S. citizen who claims dual citizenship with his native country betrays his solemn oath. If anchor babies have citizenship in their parents' country, they should not have U.S. citizenship.

Terminating the anchor-baby racket is very popular with the American people. A Rasmussen poll reports that 58 percent oppose it, while only 33 percent favor it.

Now that state legislatures are flexing their muscles, representatives from 14 states unveiled state legislation to clarify who is and who isn't a citizen in those states. The Arizona bill establishes that state law parallels the definition of citizenship in the 14th Amendment, and that a U.S. citizen is, "for the purposes of this statute, a person who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty."

The Arizona bill, introduced by Sen. Russell Pearce and Rep. John Kavanagh, would create two kinds of state birth certificates. One would be for children of citizens and the other for children of illegal aliens.

http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisS ... page/full/

well it like this we have Illegal immigrant from all over they came over for a better life. but did you come in the right way NO?
& now . this been going on for years & the gov see & know what going On . & yes you all sneak
over & think im USA Citizen . you get free med Care . food stamp. you have 5 family liveing in the same apartment & you work under the table . you were not born in the USA Not one of you . this is for all of the Illeagl immigrant s from all over the world .
the girl get Pregnamt In other country . & then come over to the usa & my Baby is American Citizen not by along shot
we don't go over to your country & say we want this & that no way
why all the American Pay for every thing & we are sick of this
the gov better wake up .
No Amnesty

Originally Posted by stevetheroofer

Detaching the Anchor From Anchor Babies
Email Phyllis Schlafly |

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has stepped up to this challenge and already has 26 co-sponsors for his bill, H.R. 140, to define citizenship. It states that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment means a baby born in the United States only if one parent is a U.S. citizen, or a lawfully admitted resident alien, or an alien on active duty in the U.S. armed services.

King is not trying to amend the Constitution. He is simply using the 14th Amendment's Section 5, which gives Congress (not the judiciary, not the executive branch) the power to enforce the citizenship clause.
In 1993, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., introduced similar legislation. Bills to limit birthright citizenship to children of U.S. citizens and of aliens who are legal residents have been introduced by other members of Congress every year since.

There is no ambiguity about the solemn oath that all naturalized Americans must take. "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 ... so help me God."

Makes me wonder why anyone would claim that mere presence in the United States somehow conveys citizenship to people. And that is without even considering that the author of the citizenship clause stated that the 14th amendment does not grant citizenship to foreigners or aliens.
************************************************** *******************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

when our ancestors came over did they get a free meal ticket - hell no!

at the time that was not even available, thank goodness 'cause that's just a way to make people more dependent on the government and that's what they want.