Posted on 04/30/2008 6:01:42 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
An anchor baby is defined as an offspring of an illegal immigrant or other non-citizen who becomes a citizen at birth. These children may qualify for welfare and other state and local benefit programs. Additionally, the child may sponsor other family members for entry into the United Sates when he or she reaches age 21 (chain migration). The sheer numbers are staggering. According to the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for the newly emancipated slaves, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The phrase "SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF" was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was incomplete. For example, the children of foreign visitors, ambassadors, and consuls are not citizens. In the case of illegal aliens, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Therefore, some constitutional scholars contend that since they are NOT born "under the jurisdiction" of the United States, the completeness of allegiance to the U.S. is impaired and precludes automatic citizenship.
(Excerpt) Read more at fairus.org ...
ping!
As the song says, "I can help."
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "Lesley Stahl vs. Antonin Scalia in the Court of Public Opinion"
Republicans had 12 years to solve this problem.
Succinctly stated.
It seems obvious that even the Radical Republicans of the Reconstruction era did not intend for the citizens of other countries to decide who will be the citizens of the United States.
But that is exactly what is happening now - foreigners are committing a crime with the singular intent of making citizens of their children. When did we vote to be ruled in the future by their offspring?
In a nation of laws governed by the consent of the governed, the obvious first rule is that the governed decide who will be part of their nation - not others. That is why we have immigration and naturalization laws.
To abdicate this authority and responsibility to the desires of aliens, illegal aliens at that, is absurd.
And we had a Republican President and Congress for a brief 2 years there. All sorts of things could have gotten done.
But weren't.
Which is why a certain group of people are probably going to fade to nothing in the not-so-distant future.
But it isn't like they didn't get a chance.
Another poster here, had a more practical remedy.
Persons entering the US on a tourist Visa, have to declare children born during their visit, at the time of their departure. The children are citizens of the mother’s country.
If illegal immigrants were declared “undocumented visitors” (as a class of persons who travelled here, without a Visa, but subject to the same regulations), their children would not receive citizenship status (nor, free education, medical and other benefits).
A simple piece of legislation could change Visa regulations,
and if applications of the new rules is backdated, many billions of dollars in government (deficit) spending could be taken off the books. Not to mention, children born to legal citizens would enjoy better educations (with smaller classroom size and higher funding allocations per student).
Technically, they never actually overturned it, -just ignored it.
Just one more way to secure the take over. Thank you to all the politicans that we voted for who turned coat and support the invaders.
My niece is an OB/GYN who took her pre-med at HAAAAVVAAAAADDD! Needless to say, she emerged from that experience a FLAMING, BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL.
Upon completing her medical training at yet another liberal university, she interned at a hospital near the border in San Diego.
It was there that a mystical transformation took place: She began to connect the heavy deductions from the GROSS EARNINGS for which she busted her butt for as many as 72 virtually sleepless hours in a row with the taxis and jalopies regularly sliding to the curb in front of the ER.
Many of them contained pregnant illegals who won the race to deliver their babies HERE. She caught many of those “anchor babies” who, under the current — and ERRONEOUS — interpretation of the 14th Amendment were IMMEDIATELY NEW AMERICANS. The mother – who, obviously, could not care for the child if she were back in her native land — could not be deported now even if the INS and the political bosses WANTED her deported . And as the mother of a new US citizen, the woman could remain here for about as long as she cared to – and that was usually for life.
Most of those patients were welfare recipients and the deliveries were charity cases: The bill for the hospital’s – and HER services – were routinely spread over the bills of those who DO pay. And what the other users of those facilities don’t cover went back to the taxpayers.
And since my niece was now a taxpayer, they were costing HER.
And while she may not exactly be a libertarian, today she’s now a LOOONNNNG way from Haaaavaaaaaad.
And just so the bleeders who might see this don’t think me some sort of ethnocentric bigot, I submit this problem is MORE than just about illegals.
Before my oldest daughter was born at University Hospital in Cleveland in 1967, I sat in the main lobby as welfare mother-to-be after welfare mother-to-be shuffled through the door to the maternity ER for THEIR free deliveries.
Before WE could take OUR daughter home, I had to cough up over 3 grand. And that was a great deal of dough in 1967, especially for a guy just out of the USAF.
As I wrote the check, I remembered the magazine article I’d recently read by a hospital administrator from Massachusetts who admitted that all US hospitals practiced a form of medical Marxism, spreading the costs of care for indigents over the bills of those who DO pay for care. Given the move to socialism here, it probably will never be otherwise: Not counting Byzantine complexity and confusion, government produces – and has — NOTHING unless it first takes it from some PERSON. SOMEBODY ALWAYS PAYS.
Look, I have a big enough problem paying for the 3rd and 4th generation slackers and welfare bums who were BORN here.
It’s time we stopped paying for those who were not.
Technically, they never actually overturned it, -just ignored it.
Any elected congressman are senator could bring legal action on the 14th today and prove the current and prior action of letting illegals claim citizenship was illegal. Has anyone filed those papers.
Don’t worry, my anti-Invasion FR friends...It’s gonna happen! The conservatives will capture thue House as Hillary takes The White House. The Senate will never go along with our interpretation, but the House will keep the pressure up.
Of course, it will be a miracle if conservatives win back the House with Tancredo and Hunter leaving the body. What has happened IS...the anti-Invasion movement has grown bigger than they ever imagined it to be and has transcended Congress, cutting its own path of patriotism and the return to the rule of law and showing others they should follow!
I am confident that we have the illegals and their ACLU-La Raza-Chamber of Idiots on the losing end. Our momentum is unbelievable! Don’t get too down about things, as good things are continuing to happen.
Soon, the Hazelton decision will be overturned. That will be a HUGE victory for law and order folks like us. States that haven’t shown much gumption in combating the Invasion are showing signs of having backbones. The key states—CA and TX—will be where ICE needs to do the most busts, the most “enforcement”.
Those legal scholars who believe that anchor babies don’t automatically get citizenship include me.
Exactly right. You mentioned the Radical Republicans and I’ve read a lot about Rep. Thaddeus Stevens of PA (who led the impeachment of President Johnson), and his ONLY intention was that the 14th Anmendment apply to the emancipated slaves. He didn’t address the matter of the children of foreigners or illegal aliens because - given the historical context and original intent of the Amendment - such a notion would have been utterly preposterous and inconceivable to him. The other radical Republicans - Ben Wade, Chandler, etc. - were of the same mind. In any case, the crucial phrase “under the jurisdiction thereof” would clearly apply to the liberated slaves but NOT to all manner of foreign offspring. This is also proved by the fact that it didn’t apply to Indians until they were naturalized because they had tribal allegiances and were not considered to be under U.S. “jurisdiction.”
I think you made some terrific observations. And I think there are lots of people like your niece - but the best teacher is the cold reality of personal experience. And I totally agree that this isn’t a race or ethnic issue. I don’t care if they’re white, black, Hispanic, or polka dot: the fact is we have too many fakers and loafers on the public dole. By the way, the charge of “racism” today is the new form of McCarthyism: when you can’t produce facts or a rational argument you smear your opponent by calling him names or defaming his character. We see this done constantly against those of us who want secure borders.
Right! But that’s too logical for the PC liberals who don’t want to be annoyed by logical thought!
Me too!
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 500,000 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, not to mention those who do not understand the history behind such amendments to the US Constitution.
I guess the libs can cough up their cash to re-open the 76 hospitals in the US southern border states that have been bankrupted because of our open borders, BS interpretation of the law, and political spinelessness sucking on socialism so hard they are blue in the face and/or getting their pockets lined by business and criminals exploiting the illegal aliens as the US's new slaves?
The situation and lack of common sense displayed by so many wimpy PC types and a government that will not enforce its own laws.
If people want to be compassionate and generous to our southern neighbors, then let them do it on their own, not through wasteful government spending.
Of course people with more 'warm fuzzies about' it all being the socialists they are, will never read the Congressional Records on the Senate Floor debates from 1866-1868 to understand the intent of the 14th...that would deep-6 their positions and a nervous breakdown would ensue.
Why doesn't Mexico take care of its own people? Why don't the ultra-wealthy Mexican elites help to pay for the health care and education etc of their own poor? Why do they instead encourage their poor to leave Mexico and invade the United States? Nature provides a parallel that is instructive.
Some species of birds thrive not by carefully rearing their own young, but by pawning that task off on adults of other species. The European Cuckoo, whose distinctive call is immortalized in the sound of the "cuckoo clock," is the bird in which this habit has been most thoroughly studied. Female European Cuckoos lay their eggs only in the nests of other species of birds. A cuckoo egg usually closely mimics the eggs of the host (one of whose eggs is often removed by the cuckoo).
The host may recognize the intruding egg and abandon the nest, or it may incubate and hatch the cuckoo egg. Shortly after hatching, the young European Cuckoo, using a scoop-like depression on its back, instinctively shoves over the edge of the nest any solid object that it contacts. With the disappearance of their eggs and rightful young, the foster parents are free to devote all of their care to the young cuckoo. Frequently this is an awesome task, since the cuckoo chick often grows much larger than the host adults long before it can care for itself. One of the tragicomic scenes in nature is a pair of small foster parents working like Sisyphus to keep up with the voracious appetite of an outsized young cuckoo.
That strikes me as a very good analogy. Perhaps America is the “surrogate mother” of the illegals who nest here and receive social welfare and other benefits while sending billions back to Mexico. It seems to me the corrupt government of Mexico has the best of both worlds: they export their poor and their felons for us to contend with and import billions to prop up their failed social system. We have all the problems and they get all the benefits! We pay ever-increasing taxes for prison incarceration, insolvent hospitals, bankrupt public school districts and the huge human and financial costs of the drug cartel while they get relief from their social problems and get paid for it. Not a bad deal!
Excellent historical summary! And you’re absolutely right - the open-borders crowd don’t give a damn about historical context or original intent. The ethnocentric pressure groups, special-interest business lobbies (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.) who love low wages with no benefits - better yet, ‘off the books’ - and politicians pandering for votes have NO concern for the general welfare or the Constitution. Here’s one obvious example:
Article.IV., Section. 4. U.S. Constitution:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.
Even the business and ethnocentric lobbies and special-interest pressure groups are forced to admit it’s a foreign illegal invasion. The plain English meaning and original intent of the Constitution is clear. Anyone who is confused about it need only read the Federalist Papers. But sadly, these self-promoting factions, along with liberal judicial activists who have a personal political agenda to advance have robbed us citizens of a voice. They don’t give a hoot about the Constitution or the general welfare.
What if an American woman falls in love with an illegal and they have kids? Are they considered anchor babies too?
“What if an American woman falls in love with an illegal and they have kids? Are they considered anchor babies too?”
The child would have one parent who is a legal citizen, so no.
The father, however, still is illegal.
The ones in question are products of 2 illegal alien parents, which was never meant to receive jackpot citizenship.
Bingo! And Mexico reminds me of an obstinate stepchild pulling at mommy's skirt "gimme gimme gimme! Whaaaaaa!!!" What gripes me most is how the open-borders pro-illegal bunch who are vocal here (you know who you are) conveniently never bring that up...or place any blame on Mexico or it's government or inhabitants for it's problems...
Off the top of my head....in the past, legislation has been introduced by Hunter, Tancredo, Nathan Deal, Mark Foley, and Hayworth
H.R. 1940: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1940
Thanks ! :)
A woman who has a Visa to visit the U.S. had a son here with her partner -another illegal (but living in this country), so when it is her time to leave and go back to Mexico she flies right back with her U.S. citizen son (who’s hospital bill was paid by Medical by the way), spends a few months relaxing at home, then when she feels like coming back and renewing her Visa she goes and does not mention her U.S. baby. So they renew it, and when she has to cross the border she hands the baby to a citizen or resident friend or family member that can walk over her baby seperately!
And guess what she just had another baby on her “visit” to the United States!
I wonder how many people do that...
first.lady@whitehouse.gov
1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE N.W.
WASHINGTON DC, 20500
PHONE 202 456-1414
FAX 202 456-2461
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.