Thread: Question on Anchor babies

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

If the parents were here LEGALLY then the 'Anchor Baby' tag does NOT apply.

Personally, I think the 14th Amendment should have been repealed as soon as the last documented slave died.

No more babies of slaves, no more need for the amendment.

I couldn't agree more. I have noticed that everything about this illegal alien movement is patterned after the slavery abolition/civil rights movement, right down to the Rosa Parks analogy and Slime Coleman coaching/advocacy. Hell, I'm surprised they don't have a self proclaimed Dr. King in their midst.

The problem that illegals and their supporters have and refuse to acknowledge is they ARE NOT CITIZENS. Their remedy to that is the excessive reproduction of those who automatically become entitled to citizenship. If we stop that then their power in numbers analogy will die a quiet death and may end the reconquista possibilities. Without this manifestation, we are doomed.

No, mkfarnam, mine is a bt more slim than that!!!!LOL

Mine is just a big cat, allover. He is a mole catcher (well really he likes birds). He will sit and listen for the moles to be tunneling out, then he pounces on the hole and starts digging, and yanks the mole out, then tosses it till it is scared to death (literally).

See here, moles are BIG! About the size of a large guinea pig. He does not usually try to eat them, most of the times.

Originally Posted by BlueJersey

I agree with the guy that started this thread..She's indeed an anchor baby that she speak out against.

Her parent came as a visitor but something tells me they planned to make sure the baby would be american instead of asian..This is illegal.

This occured in 1970. Can you cite the visa regulations as well as the facts of the case that specify whether or not the Maglalang family was here on a temporary basis only, or whether they entered the US on a temporary basis with a clear path to legal permanent status? Can you provide any evidence other than conjecture of what their intentions were?

There are several temporary visa categories for work, family and educational purposes that permit the migrant to apply for permanent status irregardless of whether or not they bear children in the USA. My wife and kids migrated here, legally, on just such a temporary visa. This type of visa permits a stay of 2 years, specifically for the purpose of allowing us to be together while we are in the process of applying for permanent status or "green card." That is the current situation with visa and immigration law. I don't know what the laws were in 1970, but I don't see any evidence offered by either Chris13 or BlueJersey that supports their position. Again, this is an attack against Michelle Malkin that has been circulating the liberal/OBL blogs over the past several weeks, and there is no evidence of law offered in those entries either.

Blue Jersey is way off base here, because while case law is not settled as to whether the offspring of persons illegally within our borders have a birthright to citizenship under Amendment XIV, the case law is in fact settled regarding those maintaining legal residency. That was settled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898.

Thank You, Crocket, you are truly a walking encyclopedia of legal and practical knowledge, and perhaps the greatest resource on these boards.

The 14th amendment will stay intact for a long long time and i doubt the supreme court will overturn it since this madder already came up twice.

The votes arent there in congress since you will need a super majority to change it, then of course, the supreme court will have to agree to change it, which will not happen.

Malkin parents came to the U.S as visitor and got malkin in the U.S This is not right and if you tolerate this, then you shouldnt say a peep when chinnese visitors comes here under visit visa just to make sure their child are U.S citizens..Just because Malkin agrees with you, does not make it right..She's an anchor baby just like any illegal immigrant's children born in US land.

Originally Posted by BlueJersey

The 14th amendment will stay intact for a long long time and i doubt the supreme court will overturn it since this madder already came up twice.

The votes arent there in congress since you will need a super majority to change it, then of course, the supreme court will have to agree to change it, which will not happen.

Malkin parents came to the U.S as visitor and got malkin in the U.S This is not right and if you tolerate this, then you shouldnt say a peep when chinnese visitors comes here under visit visa just to make sure their child are U.S citizens..Just because Malkin agrees with you, does not make it right..She's an anchor baby just like any illegal immigrant's children born in US land.

What are you babbling about? Amendment XIV uses the specific clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) specifically to separate those who have come here legally with the intent to become citizens from those loyal to another country and either simply passing through or here unlawfully. Go read a book or something.

You act like the the supreme court never debated this issue..All im saying is, this thing is not likely to be overturn for a whyle.

The Democrats will have to agree to give you a vote to abolishthe 14th amendment and you know this wont happen, not for a million years.You will need Pelosi support to pass such a law and i doubt you will get it.This is the only way the Supreme court will take this subject and im certain if this thing gain super majority and passes both body of congress, the supreme court will strike it down.

On Malkin, her father came to the US on a "temporary" worker visa..Not a green card..Malkin is a jock pot baby because because of her, the farther was able to process his work paper to get his green card and didnt have to go back to asia.

Now, do you agree that any immigrant under a temporary work permit should be allow to bring their pregant wife along and make sure the child has US citizenship so they wont have o go back to their country?....You have to be fair here, malkin is an anchor baby....Malkin is like those anti-gay republicans that turn out to be gay...Malkin is an anti-ancor-baby anchor baby

Jock Pot Baby???

Someone please pass the popcorn.

Originally Posted by BlueJersey

You act like the the supreme court never debated this issue..All im saying is, this thing is not likely to be overturn for a whyle.

The Democrats will have to agree to give you a vote to abolishthe 14th amendment and you know this wont happen, not for a million years.You will need Pelosi support to pass such a law and i doubt you will get it.This is the only way the Supreme court will take this subject and im certain if this thing gain super majority and passes both body of congress, the supreme court will strike it down.

On Malkin, her father came to the US on a "temporary" worker visa..Not a green card..Malkin is a jock pot baby because because of her, the farther was able to process his work paper to get his green card and didnt have to go back to asia.

Now, do you agree that any immigrant under a temporary work permit should be allow to bring their pregant wife along and make sure the child has US citizenship so they wont have o go back to their country?....You have to be fair here, malkin is an anchor baby....Malkin is like those anti-gay republicans that turn out to be gay...Malkin is an anti-ancor-baby anchor baby

Are you daft or are you just dissembling? Yes, the Supreme Court debated the issue. Twice. Once they ruled that the child of immigrants who were here legally but who had not yet obtained their own citizenship met the test for being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The other time they ruled that the provision did not apply to the children of Indians who maintained their residency on a reservation. That's it.

As for "being overturn (sic)," you don't overturn an amendment. You may rereal an amendment with another amendment (as with Amendment XVIII, rolled back by Amendment XXI), but that's about it.

In short, if you don't know what the hell you're talking about then maybe you should exercise the prudence to remain silent rather than demonstrating your absolute ignorance of the topic at hand.