The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007

[GaryC 7]

For those who talk about historical relevance and intentions changing (Gary used the word, perverted)...notice the year 1982

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to children who were illegal immigrants. The Court found that where states limit the rights afforded to people based on their status as aliens, this limitation must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial goal of the State.

...

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 [1]

....

You can speculate, form an opinion all you want...it ain't going to change the fact that in relevance to illegal immigration, the Supreme Court ruled that children born here are U.S. citizens...period.

That is the perversion of the original intent of the law I speak of. If the court can pervert it then another court can correct that perversion. That is what I want.

Judicial activism, right? Ohhhhh...deep sigh.

The original interpritation that allowed illegals to become citizens if born here was judicial activism. Now it will take a judge that actually follows the law to correct that.

[Dan J 277]

I call BS...Gary, the New World was up for grabs, sh!t! Back then, nobody was talking about protecting borders! My God! If you're gonna bring history into this argument then lets talk about land rights, citizenship and the creation of this nation. Don't be silly.

Call BS if you want. In the late 1800 we did have immigration laws and the country wasn't up for grabs. This was post civil war, not post revolutionary war. Our borders were set and this law was made to enable former slaves to enjoy their rights to become a citizen. It had nothing to do with immigration, it was perverted into that.

You can't cherry pick history (see, Mexico's War of Independence, Mexican-American War), Gary and that's just what you're doing. Sheez...I've brought up history before with regard to immigration and was told that it's no longer relative. I've heard more than one person here making reference to the historical intentions of the 14th Amendment and right to citizenship.

Your missing the whole point. The 14th amendment was never intended to include illegals or legals for that matter. It was intended to grant citizenship to former slaves. Read again about the amendment and try to understand. The quote by the way is from the writer of the amendment.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

"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."

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 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.

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 correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation '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.'

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.

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

http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issue...hor_babies.html

If you read it carefully, it doesn't apply to 'anchor babies' Since they are neither alien nor a foreigner when they receive citizenship. Their parents may be, but it doesn't say anything about that. The only family qualification mentioned in that statement, is children of diplomats.

[Caladan 19]

No one is talking about stripping anyone of their citizenship, just stop granting it by virtue of being born here. It will remove at least some of the incentive for these people. Anchor babies is one of the avenues that the illegals use to remain even though they haven't the right. Thankfully it is starting to not work but it did for a long time because of the bad publicity of "breaking up families". It would also eliminate all this BS talk of "breaking up families" when they are caught. They all go back then and no breaking up happens.

Ok, I sort of see what you mean.

No, it would replace talk of breaking up families with talk of being deported after having spent 20 years in the country because as it turns out, you weren't a citizen. Or pulling a child born here, fluent in English, raised here out of school to send him home to a country he's never been to. The publicity's bad enough when it's an 18-year-old brought here as a toddler. Going to be worse when the person can say 'I was born in Peoria, never even been to Mexico, and now I'm being deported there.'

Even if it were a fix, which it isn't, it would be a pretty long-term one. You're not stripping citizenship, so... all those ANCHOR BABIES! are still here. So you've thrown the Constitution in the toilet (and I expect you're originalist about everything else, too, right?) for no gain in the next half century.

We can't make major legal decisions based on someone else's false perception that people are coming here just for anchor babies so they can get residency in 30 years. Anchor babies do NOT allow you to stay. Why would I change a pretty fundamental principle of America law, one that allowed a lot of families to get a start here over the years, over a false perception? They're coming here because they can make a lot of money and improve their lives back home. You want to stop immigration? Fix that.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Your missing the whole point. The 14th amendment was never intended to include illegals or legals for that matter. It was intended to grant citizenship to former slaves. Read again about the amendment and try to understand. The quote by the way is from the writer of the amendment.

oohh ok, i think i understandwhere you are coming from.

it is your line of thought that the constitution and its amendments were written to address soley the issues at hand specifically. as opposed to adressing problems generally.

Is my reading correct?

Daniel

:energetic:

In this case it was meant to adress a specific problem, rights for former slaves. It had nothing to do with immigration. Later judges glommend onto it as a way of making law from the bench. The original intent was never to allow aliens to aquire citizenship by birth, in fact the writer of the amendment specificly said it wasn't meant for that.

interesting indeed. so, with the same line of thiinking, the amendmant that gauranteees the right to bear arms... which was written so the people could form militas (an issue at the time) is out of date and should be interpreted strictly along those lines? see the problem. i don't think you would want that kind of logic applied to that. (for the record, i approve of how this amendment is currently interpreted)).

Daniel

:energetic:

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Caladan - There is some logic in what you write. However, it's highly conceivable that is a percentage of illegals do "Anchor Babies" knowing that will be American Citizens.

[GaryC 7]

I call BS...Gary, the New World was up for grabs, sh!t! Back then, nobody was talking about protecting borders! My God! If you're gonna bring history into this argument then lets talk about land rights, citizenship and the creation of this nation. Don't be silly.

Call BS if you want. In the late 1800 we did have immigration laws and the country wasn't up for grabs. This was post civil war, not post revolutionary war. Our borders were set and this law was made to enable former slaves to enjoy their rights to become a citizen. It had nothing to do with immigration, it was perverted into that.

You can't cherry pick history (see, Mexico's War of Independence, Mexican-American War), Gary and that's just what you're doing. Sheez...I've brought up history before with regard to immigration and was told that it's no longer relative. I've heard more than one person here making reference to the historical intentions of the 14th Amendment and right to citizenship.

Your missing the whole point. The 14th amendment was never intended to include illegals or legals for that matter. It was intended to grant citizenship to former slaves. Read again about the amendment and try to understand. The quote by the way is from the writer of the amendment.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

"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."

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 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.

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 correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation '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.'

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.

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

http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issue...hor_babies.html

If you read it carefully, it doesn't apply to 'anchor babies' Since they are neither alien nor a foreigner when they receive citizenship. Their parents may be, but it doesn't say anything about that. The only family qualification mentioned in that statement, is children of diplomats.

"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."

This describes anchor babies exactly. I don't see how you can spin it any other way.

[Dan J 277]

Caladan - There is some logic in what you write. However, it's highly conceivable that is a percentage of illegals do "Anchor Babies" knowing that will be American Citizens.

I bet many people do know about it, but how many people are able to take advantage of it after waiting 20 plus years, assuming they are still alive is a lot lower.

[GaryC 7]

Your missing the whole point. The 14th amendment was never intended to include illegals or legals for that matter. It was intended to grant citizenship to former slaves. Read again about the amendment and try to understand. The quote by the way is from the writer of the amendment.

ooh ok, i think i understand where you are coming from.

it is your line of thought that the constitution and its amendments were written to address soley the issues at hand specifically. as opposed to addressing problems generally.

Is my reading correct?

Daniel

:energetic:

In this case it was meant to address a specific problem, rights for former slaves. It had nothing to do with immigration. Later judges glommed onto it as a way of making law from the bench. The original intent was never to allow aliens to acquire citizenship by birth, in fact the writer of the amendment specifically said it wasn't meant for that.

interesting indeed. so, with the same line of thinking, the amendment that guarantees the right to bear arms... which was written so the people could form militias (an issue at the time) is out of date and should be interpreted strictly along those lines? see the problem. i don't think you would want that kind of logic applied to that. (for the record, i approve of how this amendment is currently interpreted)).

Daniel

:energetic:

I knew where you were heading with that. The right to bear arms in in the bill of rights. Those rights can never be amended or revoked. It is fundamentally different from the later amendments.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Your missing the whole point. The 14th amendment was never intended to include illegals or legals for that matter. It was intended to grant citizenship to former slaves. Read again about the amendment and try to understand. The quote by the way is from the writer of the amendment.

oohh ok, i think i understandwhere you are coming from.

it is your line of thought that the constitution and its amendments were written to address soley the issues at hand specifically. as opposed to adressing problems generally.

Is my reading correct?

Daniel

:energetic:

In this case it was meant to adress a specific problem, rights for former slaves. It had nothing to do with immigration. Later judges glommend onto it as a way of making law from the bench. The original intent was never to allow aliens to aquire citizenship by birth, in fact the writer of the amendment specificly said it wasn't meant for that.

Gary, the purpose and intent of our Constitution Amendments and their subsequent rulings aren't to twist or contort the Constitution for a specific issue where clarity is needed. It is a matter of always looking at the broader scope in its context. This is why ambiguity is inevitable - there's no way to have an answer for every specific legal question. That ruling was not done in a vacuum...there is a process of carefully discussing the ramifications before ruling on a case.

[Dan J 277]

I call BS...Gary, the New World was up for grabs, sh!t! Back then, nobody was talking about protecting borders! My God! If you're gonna bring history into this argument then lets talk about land rights, citizenship and the creation of this nation. Don't be silly.

Call BS if you want. In the late 1800 we did have immigration laws and the country wasn't up for grabs. This was post civil war, not post revolutionary war. Our borders were set and this law was made to enable former slaves to enjoy their rights to become a citizen. It had nothing to do with immigration, it was perverted into that.

You can't cherry pick history (see, Mexico's War of Independence, Mexican-American War), Gary and that's just what you're doing. Sheez...I've brought up history before with regard to immigration and was told that it's no longer relative. I've heard more than one person here making reference to the historical intentions of the 14th Amendment and right to citizenship.

Your missing the whole point. The 14th amendment was never intended to include illegals or legals for that matter. It was intended to grant citizenship to former slaves. Read again about the amendment and try to understand. The quote by the way is from the writer of the amendment.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

"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."

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 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.

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 correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation '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.'

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.

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

http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issue...hor_babies.html

If you read it carefully, it doesn't apply to 'anchor babies' Since they are neither alien nor a foreigner when they receive citizenship. Their parents may be, but it doesn't say anything about that. The only family qualification mentioned in that statement, is children of diplomats.

"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."

This describes anchor babies exactly. I don't see how you can spin it any other way.

Not at all. In the context it applies to people being given citizenship retroactively after the law was changed. So if you were born in the US, and became a citizen of another country or were born to foreign diplomats, you couldn't get citizenship in the US. But this doesn't apply to the children born here, since they are not technically aliens, they don't have citizenship in another country.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No one is talking about stripping anyone of their citizenship, just stop granting it by virtue of being born here. It will remove at least some of the incentive for these people. Anchor babies is one of the avenues that the illegals use to remain even though they haven't the right. Thankfully it is starting to not work but it did for a long time because of the bad publicity of "breaking up families". It would also eliminate all this BS talk of "breaking up families" when they are caught. They all go back then and no breaking up happens.

Ok, I sort of see what you mean.

No, it would replace talk of breaking up families with talk of being deported after having spent 20 years in the country because as it turns out, you weren't a citizen. Or pulling a child born here, fluent in English, raised here out of school to send him home to a country he's never been to. The publicity's bad enough when it's an 18-year-old brought here as a toddler. Going to be worse when the person can say 'I was born in Peoria, never even been to Mexico, and now I'm being deported there.'

Even if it were a fix, which it isn't, it would be a pretty long-term one. You're not stripping citizenship, so... all those ANCHOR BABIES! are still here. So you've thrown the Constitution in the toilet (and I expect you're originalist about everything else, too, right?) for no gain in the next half century.

We can't make major legal decisions based on someone else's false perception that people are coming here just for anchor babies so they can get residency in 30 years. Anchor babies do NOT allow you to stay. Why would I change a pretty fundamental principle of America law, one that allowed a lot of families to get a start here over the years, over a false perception? They're coming here because they can make a lot of money and improve their lives back home. You want to stop immigration? Fix that.

Beautifully stated! Amen, sister.

[mawilson 2,133]

Caladan - There is some logic in what you write. However, it's highly conceivable that is a percentage of illegals do "Anchor Babies" knowing that will be American Citizens.

I bet many people do know about it, but how many people are able to take advantage of it after waiting 20 plus years, assuming they are still alive is a lot lower.

Plus remember that even after 20 odd years they STILL have to go back to get an immigrant visa -

which means automatic 10-year bans for overstay, waivers and all that jazz.

[GaryC 7]

Illegal alien enabelers, there is no reasoning with them. I am just glad your in an ever increasing minority in this country. We will rid ourselves of this invasion. It's getting better by the day. Just look at the news, every day a city or state passes a law making it harder to be here illegally. At some point the congress will have to take notice and take a hard line nation wide. Those of us that believe in the rule of law will not rest until they do.

[Dan J 277]

Illegal alien enabelers, there is no reasoning with them. I am just glad your in an ever increasing minority in this country. We will rid ourselves of this invasion. It's getting better by the day. Just look at the news, every day a city or state passes a law making it harder to be here illegally. At some point the congress will have to take notice and take a hard line nation wide. Those of us that believe in the rule of law will not rest until they do.

I prefer the label American who recognizes the history and need of immigration in this country. As far as minority? I guess that depends who you ask. Your friends and the people you know will likely share your view, but if you come to where I live, you will find that your view is rather scarce.

So do you have rebuttal for my argument on the article you quoted?

[mawilson 2,133]

Illegal alien enabelers, there is no reasoning with them. I am just glad your in an ever increasing minority in this country. We will rid ourselves of this invasion. It's getting better by the day. Just look at the news, every day a city or state passes a law making it harder to be here illegally. At some point the congress will have to take notice and take a hard line nation wide. Those of us that believe in the rule of law will not rest until they do.

Gary,

I'm all for it. Let's just try not to destroy the Constitution in the process.