Thread: ANCHOR BABIES AND THE CONSTITUTION

Birthright citizenship
Main article: Birthright citizenship in the United States of America

A series of articles on
The U.S. Immigration Debate

The provisions in Section 1 have been interpreted to the effect that children born on United States soil, with very few exceptions, are U.S. citizens. This type of guarantee—legally termed jus soli, or "right of the territory"— does not exist in most of Western Europe, Asia or the Middle East, although it is part of English common law and is common in the Americas.
The phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof indicates that there are some exceptions to the universal rule that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship.
Two Supreme Court precedents were set by the cases of Elk v. Wilkins[2] and United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[3] Elk v. Wilkins established that Native American tribes represented independent political powers with no allegiance to the United States, and that their peoples were under a special jurisidiction of the United States. Children born to these Native American tribes therefore did not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Indian tribes that paid taxes were exempt from this ruling; their peoples were already citizens by an earlier Act of Congress.

In Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a man born within the United States to foreigners (in that case, Chinese citizens) who were lawfully residing in the United States and who were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power, was a citizen of the United States.

Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are not "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]", and thus do not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment:

Children born to foreign diplomats;
Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States;
Children born to Native Americans who are members of tribes not taxed (these were later given full citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).

The following persons born in the United States are explicitly citizens:

Children born to US citizens;

Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people and obeying its laws.

The Court in Wong Kim Ark did not explicitly decide whether U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (it was not necessary to answer this question since Wong Kim Ark's parents were legally present in the United States at the time of his birth).

However, the Supreme Court's later ruling in Plyler v. Doe[4] stated that illegal immigrants are "within the jurisdiction" of the states in which they reside, and added in a footnote that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

http://www.answers.com/topic/citizenship-clause




And while this may be a supreme court decision, it is NOT part of the Constitution, NOR LAW as established by Congress. MAKING LAWS is NOT the responsibility of the Judicial arm of the government. So is it really legal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your thouhts?

No child that is born of illegal aliens are really citizens of the US. they should be sent with their parents

Its a load of garbage. The late Congressman who wrote the amendment specified it DOES NOT APPLY TO ALIENS. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE NEVER GIVEN ANY SAY IN THIS, THE GOVERNMENT JUST STARTED HANDING OUT PASSPORTS TO ANCHOR BABIES.

THEY AREN'T CITIZENS. END OF STORY.

SO TAKE YOUR ILLEGAL SELF AND YOUR ILLEGAL BRATS BACK HOME.

I personally call them all invaders. This is what their parents were. I sympathize with the children for their plight, but it was not brought on by us, it was brought on by their parents.

However, my sympathy does not reach as far as recognizing them as anything other than the children of illegal aliens. They will have to find their way in their own countries and if they feel they can make a difference there, after experiencing all the greatness this country has, then they can fight to make their own countries what they wish them to be. Our own ancestors did, so can they.

Citizens? No.

Lagality of this, to me, not at all legal, and this needs to be decided by the American people alone, not even Congress, we cannot trust their judgement anymore, as it seems they simply want to gain voters.

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13.

In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

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.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.


For more information, see:
P.A. Madison, Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies, The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans (February 1, 2005)

For more information, see:
P.A. Madison, Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies, The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans (February 1, 2005)

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_ ... ntent.html

This article is a bunch of baloney. They are making stuff up about the Supreme Court ruling that anchor babies are citizens. Same goes for the children of visitors.

TO NO ILLEGALS ALLOWED: GO BACK AND READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN....


The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude
American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. [To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense.

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

It's the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on America and American citizens! There is absolutely no ambiguity in the wording of the 14th Amendment!! It was strictly referring to the children of slaves who just happened to have been brought to this country against their will! I'm sure that our Founding Fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew what was happening today!

I can't help it...I am filled with disgust and resentment every time I see an illegal dragging her anchors around town. I just see dollar signs now...each anchor
anis costing us $12,000/yr just for education K thru 12! Not to mention hundreds of thousands over an entire lifetime! I love children, but not these illegitimate foreigners! They will ALWAYS be Illegal and Illigitimate in my book!!!

There was an article last year about Parkland Hospital in Dallas. They have the highest birthrate of any place in the WORLD with the exception of BOMBAY! Something like 17,000 babies born each year and 80% of them are ANCHOR BABIES! The mothers cross the border just before they are ready to deliver and wait in the parking lot until they start labor!!!

Another thing I have noticed here in Mexifornia is that most of the illegal mothers of anchor babies do not work! They are home all day, watching tv and collecting up to $500/per child! They are northing more than professional litter bearers! It's sooo sickening!

Funny how this never made CNN or even the discovery channel...Ever get the feeling the mainstream media is sandbagging is? I wonder if John Q. Public would believe, or even care about the facts?

Thanks Girlygirl for all the GREAT research!!!