Thread: No law gives anchor babies citizenship

I put this on another thread but to increase exposure and discussion I am posting it here.

Laws are passed by Congress, there is no law giving illegal alien babies birthright citizenship. They acquire citizenship from Presidential Regulation, specifically 8 CFR 1401 which states:

Quote:
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;


Notice how this leaves out the 14th Amendment debate where the Senators agreed "subject to the jurisdiction" meant "subject to the complete jurisdiction" and "excludes foreigners and aliens".

Also notice how in section (b) citizenship is conditional, while the OBLers always tell us birthright citizenship is absolute and cannot be denied for any reason. Obviously they are full of it.

The bottom line is, the President can change these regulations to more closely follow the 14th Amendment, or Congress can pass a law directing the President to change the regulations to more closely follow the 14th Amendment, meaning it would be easy to stop the current practice of citizenship for illegal alien babies.

It is also debatable that the current practice is unconstitutional, meaning it might be possible to revoke or make conditional the citizenship of current anchor babies.

the 14th was never ratified. explain its validity.

Originally Posted by draindog

the 14th was never ratified. explain its validity.

Well that's an entirely different subject, it seems so far the Supreme Court thinks it was ratified and has used it's equal protection clause in dozens of rulings.

well,... it wasnt. an amendment needs to be ratified to have legal standing. we are being manipulated and lied to as a nation.for many decades now.

If it were up to me, I would say that ANY child born to illegals after the Regan debacle (who is for some reason your hero) is NOT a citizen. I think ALL of these anchors need to be deported, then they can wait in line for citizenship. This is a HUGE slap in the face to those who are doing things LEGALLY! I don't care how old they are.

Originally Posted by DarthIllegal

If it were up to me, I would say that ANY child born to illegals after the Regan debacle (who is for some reason your hero) is NOT a citizen

Reagan later admitted signing amnesty was his "biggest mistake" because the hiring laws were not enforced. If you were President you could do exactly as you propose, since no law or Constitutional mandate gives them citizenship. Next best thing would be working to elect a President who will do what you propose.

Originally Posted by Bowman

Originally Posted by DarthIllegal

If it were up to me, I would say that ANY child born to illegals after the Regan debacle (who is for some reason your hero) is NOT a citizen

Reagan later admitted signing amnesty was his "biggest mistake" because the hiring laws were not enforced. If you were President you could do exactly as you propose, since no law or Constitutional mandate gives them citizenship. Next best thing would be working to elect a President who will do what you propose.

Who would that be? Republicans AND Democrats want amnesty. Ron Paul is the ONLY person worthy of a presidential seat.

Subject to the jurisdition of has always bothered me. IMO, a child born on U.S. soil is subject to the jurisdiction of their parents until the age of majority. At age of majority, they can then execute contracts legally in compliance with laws, i.e., they come under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Parents here legally or citizens are able to convey citizenship, while parents here illegally do not.
We have a great video in the archives where a law professor explains that, but it will take some time to find.
Ron Paul has always made sense in whatever topic is tackled. And yes, I think he would have cleaned up the mess we have today. A president was needed that spoke the truth, rather than spin, to the American people.

Originally Posted by DarthIllegal

Who would that be? Republicans AND Democrats want amnesty. Ron Paul is the ONLY person worthy of a presidential seat.

Well Gerard Celente is saying a viable third party will be formed, maybe Ron Paul has a chance in 2012.

The other option is Congress can change this policy, maybe if we get enough pro-Americans (of any party) elected to Congress they will change it.

And subject to the jurisdiction thereof can mean whatever Congress says it means. First of all an illegal alien inside the U. S. is not subject to the full jurisdiction of the U. S. Federal Government. For example, illegals can't serve on federal juries. If there was a military draft they can't legally be drafted into the military. Illegals can't legally enter a Federal building because they can't properly identify themselves. If an illegal inside the U. S. decides to leave the U. S. it may not be possible to extradite him/her back into the U. S. for some reason such as for questioning. Their children are not really automatic citizens. That's because of the status of the parents. But if one of the parents is a U. S. citizen then they would get citizenship. But most of the time both parents are not in the U. S. legally.