Thread: Your Opinion Please - Anchor Babies

We need to show what Americans really think in regard to the Illegal Immigration issue! Hopefully, this may serve to assist our ALIPAC leaders in strengthening and presenting our cause by gathering opinions that are comprehensive to a specific topic. I encourage ALIPAC Members to post such requests for opinions in order to accumulate as many responses as possible or at least to share their viewpoints in regard to the question posed. Thank you.

The Question for this posting:

SHOULD WE CHANGE OR END RULINGS THAT GRANT AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP AND/OR SOCIAL SERVICES BENEFITS TO CHILDREN WHO ARE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES BY NON-CITIZEN PARENTS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES?


Of course, no one wants to fault or deny innocent children of any birthright, but clearly this priviledge of automatic citizenship has been severely abused by many parents of foreign heritage, and not only by the Hispanics.

Knowing that their child can become a citizen if born in the United States, that child is then eligible for all the Social Services benefits that can be given to the parents. It is for this reason, and for this reason alone, many foreign citizens, primarily those who arrive illegally, come into the United States solely for the purpose of giving birth to their children here. Very few of them want to apply for citizenship, themselves. Some of these parents go even further by having additional children which would then, of course, increase the amount of Social Services benefits that are doled out to them, draining the funds that were meant to help American citizens in need of temporary aid. The original intent of offering the benefits of U.S. Citizenship has been forsaken for the sole intent of foreigners getting as much money as possible without paying taxes or becoming a citizen.

This situation is not limited to Illegal Migrants. Many people; whole families in fact, who come into this country legally are often given all sorts of Social Services benefits that would usually be denied to United States citizens who are truly in need of temporary assistance. Such benefits include; in addition to the standard food allowance per person, small business loans, down payments on homes, down payments for cars, complete medical coverage and of course, Social Security benefits to their elder family members who have never paid into the system!

Personally, I feel that it is time to restore the original intent of all Social Services and Social Security Benefits: the former for temporary assistance and the latter for supplemental retirement funds, for those who have paid into it!

What do you think about this?

I think that it needs to be made absolutely clear that the 14th amendment does not give citizenship to children born of illegals. This amendment has been purposely misinterpreted. If in doubt, you should check the records of the debate that took place during the introduction of the amendment.

As I understand it, the 14th Amendment was written as a Post Civil War Amendment to protect and ligitimize the recently freed slaves, and the children of the slaves. It is, however, the most frequently used reference in court in arguments of racism, prejudicial treatment, etc, as it also the foundation for the "equal rights" laws. It reads:

Transcript of 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (186
AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

For purposes of this discussion, we need realy look only at Section 1.
Although it would seem to grant citizenship automatically, please note the bolded area referring to jurisdiction.

The parents are not citizens, nor have they any intention of becoming citizens. They have in many many cases not established residential jurisdiction in any state they live in. And, anyone wanting to become a citizen doesn't flagrantly violate the laws of the country they're demanding citizenship from! Nor do they insist on still being able to 'go home' and vote in their 'home country's' elections!

The test for of citizenship to the child of illegals fails when you try to test for jurisdiction.

and that, as they say, is the rest of the story.

No mas anchors.

IT'S TIME TO RESCIND THE 14TH AMENDMENT

The 14th Amendment needs to be clarified to reflect its true intent. Only children born to legal residents should receive citizenship.

NO ANCHOR BABIES....
and make it retro back 20 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MAIA
MOTHERS AGAINST ILLEGAL ALIENS


Please help protect the legal USA children.

I receive hundreds of calls and e-mails from around the country.
Legal American children are falling victim and being taught to assimilate to
non-assimilation.
Our children are being shown that breaking the laws and calling law biding citizens racists have rewards. Let’s stop the lie about birthright citizenship and together we can save the USA for our kids.

DO YOU KNOW???

14th Amendment – Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

DID YOU KNOW?
Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, defined who would fall within the “jurisdiction of the United Statesâ€

SHOULD WE CHANGE OR END RULINGS THAT GRANT AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP AND/OR SOCIAL SERVICES BENEFITS TO CHILDREN WHO ARE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES BY NON-CITIZEN PARENTS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES?

No more anchor babies. It takes a LEGAL CITIZEN to make a legal citizen. Period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

This is the 1986 decision that inferred that the 14th amendment implies birth right citizenship.

Implication for U.S-born children of illegal immigrants

Plyler v. Doe did not explicitly address the question of so-called "anchor babies" born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents; the children dealt with in the case were born outside the U.S. and had entered the country illegally along with their parents.

However, the court's reasoning was significant because it ruled that illegal immigrants residing in a state are "within the jurisdiction" of that state. This implies that the U.S.-born children of such immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]", and therefore qualify for birthright citizenship under the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This implication is made explicit in a footnote that states

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

The dissenting minority agreed in principle that it was unwise for illegal alien children to be denied a public education, but the four dissenting justices argued that the Texas law was not so objectionable as to be unconstitutional; that this issue ought to be dealt with through the legislative process; that "[t]he Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem"; and that the majority was overstepping its bounds by seeking "to do Congress' job for it, compensating for congressional inaction".

This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Children.