"Anchor babies" not protected under ...

"Anchor babies" not protected under 14th amendment, says commissioner.

There are 2843 comments on the obsthisland.blogspot.com story from Jun 8, 2009, titled "Anchor babies" not protected under 14th amendment, says commissioner.. In it, obsthisland.blogspot.com reports that:

County Commissioner Bill James cited opinions among members of congress and some legal think tanks when he wrote me last week saying U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants should not be granted automatic citizenship.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at obsthisland.blogspot.com.

First Prev
of 143
Next Last

“Natural laws have no pity”

Since: May 07

Location hidden

#1 Jun 8, 2009
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"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.

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.

Judged:

35

28

24

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
cis

AOL

#2 Jun 8, 2009
SAM

West Mclean, VA

#5 Jun 8, 2009
cis wrote:
These seemingly small victories are tturning up NOW because of all the people who have utilized the entities you posted here.

They are free-even the faxing
and the battle is ON
reallly ON!

All it takes is 5 minutes to send a fax when you join www.numbers.com .

They have one set up today for Obama about supporting American workers over aliens!.!

Just do it.
You will feel like you accomplished something -because you DID.

We stopped Amnesty this very way last time!

Now you see these actions going on like litigation AGAINST Sanctuary cities, and
Federal Court upholding E-Verify
and this one.

Aall because of the indiviual, you and me-

United we stand.

Divided we would fall!

“Trump ain't playing!”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#6 Jun 8, 2009
How do you get a citizen out of two illegals anyway?
It makes no sense whatsoever.

Judged:

26

15

5

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Assimilate & Speak English!”

Since: Jan 07

Lansing, IL - now: Pomp Bch FL

#7 Jun 8, 2009
I have no clue why our present government refuses to use the 14th Amendment the way it was intended. It defies all logic to allow these illegals to come here and pop out citizens and get on the government dole AT OUR EXPENSE. If we didn't have welfare available, or if to get welfare, at least one parent had to be legal and contributing for "x" number of years, that would be different. However, right now, it's killing us and breaking us!

The very debates by the writers of the 14th amendment are preserved in the congressional record and can be read today by YOU!

http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_s...

http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_ki...

http://www.therant.us/guest/gioia/09222007.ht...

http://federalistblog.us/2006/07/delegated_po...

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpap...

“No Mercy for Munchkins”

Since: Dec 08

Clovis, CA

#8 Jun 8, 2009
Fed Up in North Carolina wrote:
How do you get a citizen out of two illegals anyway?
It makes no sense whatsoever.
No, it doesn't. The offspring is the fruit of a poisonous tree, which is why anchor babies were never meant to be citizens. Once the Supreme Court sorts out the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" provision (subject to the jurisdiction thereof means not loyal to any other country, which the offspring of illegals do not measure up to), illegals will no longer have the free ride they enjoy today.

"Aaron Sargent, a Representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates said the Fourteenth Amendmentís citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. No one came forward to dispute this conclusion.

Perhaps because he was absolutely correct."

Judged:

16

10

7

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#9 Jun 8, 2009
Fed Up in North Carolina wrote:
How do you get a citizen out of two illegals anyway?
It makes no sense whatsoever.
Because "Latino community activists" and "Hispanic civil rights organizations" are working night and day to find loopholes in the law that permits the lecherous parents to attach themselves to our public assistance programs using their offspring as an anchor.

bob

“Ron Paul is my president.”

Since: Jun 07

Trenton, N.J.

#10 Jun 8, 2009
Rebel wrote:
I have no clue why our present government refuses to use the 14th Amendment the way it was intended.
the 14th amendment sets up a second class of citizen, one that is a SUBJECT of the government. granted privileges, not rights. we did not free the slaves, we enslaved us all. the 14th amendment needs to be repealed.

“No Mercy for Munchkins”

Since: Dec 08

Clovis, CA

#11 Jun 8, 2009
bob wrote:
<quoted text>
the 14th amendment sets up a second class of citizen, one that is a SUBJECT of the government. granted privileges, not rights. we did not free the slaves, we enslaved us all. the 14th amendment needs to be repealed.
Pick a better country.
gzeena

Universal City, TX

#12 Jun 8, 2009
Ms Taletha wrote:
<quoted text>
Because "Latino community activists" and "Hispanic civil rights organizations" are working night and day to find loopholes in the law that permits the lecherous parents to attach themselves to our public assistance programs using their offspring as an anchor.
"...permits the lecherous parents to attach themselves to our public assistance programs using their offspring as an anchor."

Can I borrow that line?
POTUS

Murrieta, CA

#13 Jun 8, 2009
Agent of Chaos wrote:
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"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.
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.
Interesting, very interesting.
Do you have a link to this?
Patsy

AOL

#14 Jun 9, 2009
wow...so much hatred. What is a birth country then? I mean an infant does not make the decision where they are born. Where they are born, that is their natural birth country. If you happen to be on vacation in France and you give birth, ur child gets dual citizenship. you are french born from American parents. Does not mean that when they retire at 65 years of age that they get both french and american social benefits. If you are born in a country that makes you a birth child of that country. It has nothing to do where the parents are originally from. Get over yourselfs. you are creating social statuses that may tarnish our future. Do you want to live like in the movie Gattaca, where you are considered an invalid because you are not desireable or healthy or good enough to be a person. do you like to be labeled an invalid person because your parents where not born in the same country you where? My mom was born in england after the war, her parents were german but immigrated to Holland. She is both English and Dutch citizen. That is how it is supposed to be. Time has changed, the constitution is outdated. The supreme court will decide. Anchor babies as you call it, are american citizens.

Judged:

28

26

19

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#16 Jun 9, 2009
Patsy wrote:
wow...so much hatred. What is a birth country then? I mean an infant does not make the decision where they are born. Where they are born, that is their natural birth country. If you happen to be on vacation in France and you give birth, ur child gets dual citizenship. you are french born from American parents. Does not mean that when they retire at 65 years of age that they get both french and american social benefits. If you are born in a country that makes you a birth child of that country. It has nothing to do where the parents are originally from. Get over yourselfs. you are creating social statuses that may tarnish our future. Do you want to live like in the movie Gattaca, where you are considered an invalid because you are not desireable or healthy or good enough to be a person. do you like to be labeled an invalid person because your parents where not born in the same country you where? My mom was born in england after the war, her parents were german but immigrated to Holland. She is both English and Dutch citizen. That is how it is supposed to be. Time has changed, the constitution is outdated. The supreme court will decide. Anchor babies as you call it, are american citizens.
if I walked into your home unwelcome, and told you that I wanted you to support me with food, shelter, and freedom to do as I please ALL AT YOUR EXPENSE, how would you feel?

suppose I told you that I also wanted some sex at least once a day whenever I so desired, WOULD you be a loving participant?

OR would you hate me?

“"Fortes Fortuna Juvat!!!”

Since: Apr 09

Atlanta Georgia

#17 Jun 9, 2009
Patsy wrote:
wow...so much hatred. What is a birth country then? I mean an infant does not make the decision where they are born. Where they are born, that is their natural birth country. If you happen to be on vacation in France and you give birth, ur child gets dual citizenship. you are french born from American parents. Does not mean that when they retire at 65 years of age that they get both french and american social benefits. If you are born in a country that makes you a birth child of that country. It has nothing to do where the parents are originally from. Get over yourselfs. you are creating social statuses that may tarnish our future. Do you want to live like in the movie Gattaca, where you are considered an invalid because you are not desireable or healthy or good enough to be a person. do you like to be labeled an invalid person because your parents where not born in the same country you where? My mom was born in england after the war, her parents were german but immigrated to Holland. She is both English and Dutch citizen. That is how it is supposed to be. Time has changed, the constitution is outdated. The supreme court will decide. Anchor babies as you call it, are american citizens.
"Patsy" Ugh sweetheart! Nice try...but not even close o.k. If two people are on vacation in France,and the baby is born in France...well nope,that baby is not a French citizen! Next. And merry old England...ha! don't even dream it! Maybe at one point in time this was the case but not in that way...and not anymore! The French pulled the plug on that in the 60's when they lost Algeria and the UK. just go ahead and check their...oh so lax immigration requirements! Hell I have ONE misdameanor dui. here in Georgia on my record and that little blemish got me denied entry into...CANADA!! I shit you not! So to quote Georgia's own..Newt Gingrhitch..No,"I am NOT a citizen of the world" he went on to describe such a notion as stupid and not at all valid. I very much doubt you are stupid..I am just saying you should checkout just how HARD it really is to transfer citizenship everywhere elese in the world,and we are way past due as a nation goes about protecting our soverignty and this whole one world bullshit is over with and in fact died with the hippies....it just a'int gonna happen and its getting to a point where it's going to lead to violence should it continue to go un-checked by our government!

“"Fortes Fortuna Juvat!!!”

Since: Apr 09

Atlanta Georgia

#18 Jun 9, 2009
"Patsy" I also read that your mom was born in England and has both Dutch and English citizenship...Europe was in shambles at that time thanks to that lil Austrian bastard,and like I said...those days are looong gone! Unless you have some desireable skill such as Dr. or Engineer,or Chemist or Muslim...you can almost forget getting citizenship in the UK anymore. I mean the days of just roaming all over the world with this attitude of "wherever you hang your hat is home" are over and gone for good!! Every country out there it seems recognizes the importance of maintaining it's borders,yet here we are in the 21st century and the U.S. still dose'nt get it. I hate to say it and I hope it does'nt come to it but if this whole illegal influx keeps up,that incident or shooting in Binghampton NY. is going to be an every day event being played out on the nightly news at 6:00. And that would be tragic because the people or liberals in Washington are going to continue to ignore this untill one too many Americans have lost a job,only to see an illegal has been hired for less pay,had their home foreclosed on,discovered the 401(K) is worthless and can't send his kids to college any longer.....and says fu*k it all...loads his guns and heads out into the street....details at 6:00! thats what all this liberal one world shit is going to get us in the end.The movie(White Mans Burden) dose'nt seem so "out there" any more does it. only this time it will be (Every American Mans Burden)
Dallas

Littleton, CO

#19 Jun 9, 2009
We need 2 birth certificates
One for a child born of U.S. parent(s.)
Another one for a live birth to parent(s) of
nationals who are not U.S. citizens, naming the
country the parent(s) are citizens thereof.

Easy fix.

“Illegals are not immigrants...”

Since: Apr 07

Mid-south, USA

#20 Jun 9, 2009
This is so simple, and one can only wonder why our government refuses to change a few words in order make the intent of this amendment crystal clear. The nationality of the parents should determine the nationality of the child. End of discussion. We should require illegal immigrants to get a special birth certificate for their American born children.( A proof of birth) Those parents would have to provide proof of legal residency before they could receive the certified birth certificate. Sounds good to me.

“Illegals are not immigrants...”

Since: Apr 07

Mid-south, USA

#21 Jun 9, 2009
Dallas wrote:
We need 2 birth certificates
One for a child born of U.S. parent(s.)
Another one for a live birth to parent(s) of
nationals who are not U.S. citizens, naming the
country the parent(s) are citizens thereof.
Easy fix.
You beat me to it!!!! I agree wholeheartedly!

“Assimilate & Speak English!”

Since: Jan 07

Lansing, IL - now: Pomp Bch FL

#22 Jun 9, 2009
POTUS wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, very interesting.
Do you have a link to this?
Look at my post with the links to information on the Congressional Record. It's likely detailed in one of those links -- similar to what Agent wrote.

“Natural laws have no pity”

Since: May 07

Location hidden

#23 Jun 9, 2009

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 143
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Illegal Immigration Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump's Wall May Not Be Built, But The Illegal ... 35 min HOLLA ISAFELLA 378
News Another federal judge rules against Trump move ... 2 hr Annie Oakly 17
News First protected DREAMer is deported under Trump 3 hr Oldglory 49
News Go home: No More DACA deal for Undocumented Imm... 3 hr Annie Oakly 33
News $46,654: Annual Cost of Detaining Illegal Alien... 3 hr Oldglory 10
News More California cities may join fight against s... 4 hr ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 50
News 59 undocumented immigrants found in tractor-tra... 14 hr Genese 2