Thread: SCOTUS and Anchor Babies?

From what I've read, it seems a pretty loose interpretation of the 14th... are there any cases coming up that deal with this?

...Anyone know a good lawyer? Can we file a class action or something?

This might help you understand. It has helped me.

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

Thanks for this information!

And what was this law of the land already Howard speaks of? "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power" are citizens of the United States. So what Howard is making clear here is the simple fact his citizenship clause is no different then the law of the land already which demanded allegiance to the United States by at least the child's father before that child could be considered a U.S. born citizen.

So I take this to mean that if the parent ... is not legal or a citizen ...neither is the child!

Maybe someone in Texas will know more, but I believe that the Texas legislature has a bill coming up that would declare babies born of illegal aliens to not be citizens of the United States. They know it will be challenged and hope it will go to the Supreme Court so we can finally get the whole anchor baby thing turned around. At least that is what I remember reading.

Originally Posted by dlm1968

the Texas legislature has a bill coming up that would declare babies born of illegal aliens to not be citizens of the United States. They know it will be challenged and hope it will go to the Supreme Court so we can finally get the whole anchor baby thing turned around.

The court is heavy on the strict interpreters, so I really don't see anything going wrong... although, can you IMAGINE the freakout if they ruled that all the children of illegals weren't actually citizens? Wow. jUst. Wow.

e

Well, if you review the Congressional record and read the debates relative to the jurisdiction clause of Amendment XIV, there can be little doubt that the verbiage "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was specifically meant to exclude foreign nationals on US soil for any reason other than lawful immigration. The only precedent on the issue ever adjudicated by SCOTUS determined that the child born a pair of legal residents seeking citizenship (but who had not yet been awarded it) was a citizen and would not have to go through the naturalization process his parents were going through.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Well, if you review the Congressional record and read the debates relative to the jurisdiction clause of Amendment XIV, there can be little doubt that the verbiage "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was specifically meant to exclude foreign nationals on US soil for any reason other than lawful immigration. The only precedent on the issue ever adjudicated by SCOTUS determined that the child born a pair of legal residents seeking citizenship (but who had not yet been awarded it) was a citizen and would not have to go through the naturalization process his parents were going through.

Thank YOU. I was hoping you would chime in on this.

Originally Posted by JAK

Thanks for this information!

And what was this law of the land already Howard speaks of? "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power" are citizens of the United States.

So I take this to mean that if the parent ... is not legal or a citizen ...neither is the child!

Even more key words are "not subject to any foreign power".

Mexicans proudly toot their horn of dual citizenship, I'd say that would fall under the "subject of a foreign power". After all you can't ride two donkeys with one ass. According to the 14th amendment dual citizenship should equal a disqualifying factor as well. Your allegiance should not be divided you are either a loyal citizen of America or your beloved homeland. There is no such thing as divided loyalaty and they should not be able to have it both ways.

Sen. James Kelly a few years later when he said "in order to be a citizen of the United States he must been not only be born within the United States, but born within the allegiance of the United States."

If there was any lingering questions over the scope of the language Howard inserted, he put to rest in May of 1868 when he said that the "Constitution as now amended, forever withholds the right of citizenship in the case of accidental birth of a child belonging to foreign parents within the limits of the country."

within the allegiance of the United States

allegiance;
loyalty to ruler or state: a subject's or citizen's loyalty to a ruler or state, or the duty of obedience and loyalty owed by a subject or citizen

How can any foreign national fall within the allegiance of the United States?
It's contradictory. Therefore a child born to a foreign national cannot be a citizen.
The jurisdiction is with that foreign nationals allegiance to another country.

I know, based on the wordage of the 14 Amendment, I can't for the life of me figure out how the Supreme Court could possibly claim that children of foreign nationals become automatic citizens at birth, especially if the parents are in our country illegally. This is one of the single most important issues that needs to be dealt with ASAP!