Posted on 05/22/2010 2:17:14 PM PDT by pissant
Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce, the author of the controversial state immigration bill, told his constituents that he wants to invalidate the U.S. citizenship of children who were born to illegal immigrants.
He also sent constituents an e-mail he later said he disagrees with. "If we are going to have an effect on the anchor baby racket, we need to target the mother," it said. Other political leaders have called for an end to birthright citizenship.
Rep. Duncan Hunter of California told a tea party rally he´d support deporting the children of illegal aliens despite their birthright citizenship.
(Excerpt) Read more at shortnews.com ...
“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.”
14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. I see nothing that says, “except, of course, anchor babies.” If we want to exclude anchor babies from citizenship, then we’re going to have to do better than simply lie about the provision for natural born citizens. That’s what the Democrats do.
The link doesn’t work?
Arizona is still a state in the union and therefore bound by the federal constitution which gives naturalization authority to the US Congress. Read Article 1, section 8, clause 4.
Naturalization laws can only change from the federal level.
What happens to the anchor babies now when the parents are deported? Do they go into U.S. foster care if the parents do not take them? Do the parents abandon their rights to the kids?
I like what you’ve posted and particularly thank you for the link at the bottom. It was good reading. But the 14th Amendment wasn’t the total reason for our present law, which is based on case law: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). (See my post #13 for more details.)
I want to add something. The present Govenor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, was born in the U.S. to parents who were citizens of India. They were legal alien residents and their son is considered to be a native born citizen but not a natural born citizen (Jindal is not eligible to be President).
I firmly believe that the Wong Kim Ark case legal determination has been corrupted. Wong’s parents were legal resident aliens who, because of a treaty, could not naturalize as citizens. “The jusisdiction thereof” should not be perverted into covering the babies of illegal aliens.
“What happens to the anchor babies now when the parents are deported?”
Many times they remain in the U.S., fostered by relatives or friends. Then they’re used as “anchors”, so the parents can get back into the U.S. legally.
I understand that. The discussion was about their kids being born in the US. As far as the US Constitution goes, their kids are US citizens.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Misinterpretations of it can be challenged by the states. IF enough states AND THE PEOPLE decalre anchor babies are NOT citizens, then the feds will be reigned in. This applies to a helluva lot of topics, inclcluding the grotesquely misinterpreted Commerce clause as well as Article 1, Section 8, clause 4.
Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries, not ours. We just send them back.
The link doesn’t work?
I will give credit where credit is due, on this thread ... :-)
And, in case you've missed it before, this has been argued "into the ground" (so to speak) on birther threads where this is a big point of contention for the "natural born status" issue ... [not trying to start that here, but just to say it's shown up so many times, I don't know how someone could miss it ... :-) ...])
Section 1401 in Title 8 of the US Code is not tested as per “-Anyone born inside the United States *” no? If the second amendment is not a blank check, why would a fed statute be?
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Misinterpretations of it can be challenged by the states. IF enough states AND THE PEOPLE decalre anchor babies are NOT citizens, then the feds will be reigned in. This applies to a helluva lot of topics, inclcluding the grotesquely misinterpreted Commerce clause as well as Article 1, Section 8, clause 4.
There's nothing about the Constitution that is necessarily "sacred" in that it can't be changed at any time. In fact, it's been changed many times, so that it's not the same Constitution that the Founding Fathers originally created.
The first series of changes is what we call the Bill of Rights. And then, from that point forward, there have been multitudes of changes from that original document.
There's nothing that says that we can't remake the Constitution, and in fact, we do remake it every time there is some Constitutional Amendment put forth and passed by the people (the various states ratifying it).
And really, there's nothing that says that a particular way that the Supreme Court says is the way the Constitution intends for something to be done (legally) is necessarily wrong. The Supreme Court may be perfectly right in their interpretation, and yet -- the people of this country may want to change the Constitution from what it originally meant.
The Supreme Court never did change their decision on slavery. It was a Constitutional Amendment that changed it, so the people changed what the Constitution meant, in regards to slavery.
So, I really don't think it helps one way or another to indicate that the Constitution is something that is supposed to remain the same, because it never has remained the same, since it was first created. And it's not necessarily a "wrong decision" if the Supreme Court interprets something the "right way" (that is according to what the Constituion means) -- just because someone doesn't like the "outcome" of such a decision. That's what the Constitutional Amendment process is for -- to change the Constitution to fit the "will of the people" and not the "will of the courts".
The people do have that ability -- so it pays to think about how to change the Constitution, rather than argue about a "wrong decision". Changing the Constitution is much more productive in terms of getting done what you want done.
I don't think that is settled. Those kids belong to their parents, who don't belong here. And that is a far cry from freed slaves who were born here of parents who were born here or brought aginst there will. Those people were certainly "under the jurisdiction of" the US. First as property and then as free men.
A person born in the United States is NOT an illegal alien. He or she is a citizen.
My goal in live is to hang out here with you so that I won't miss anything.
I cant imagine how anyone in their right mind can possibly think a state can pass a law denying US Citizenship to anyone.
Its idiot ideas like this that make conservatives also look like idiots..
Me too.
What makes you think anyone born in the USA is automatically a citizen?
That’s what I’m saying - the several States have the basis for a legal challenge to accepted law based on the 14th Amendment’s “jurisdiction thereof” statement.
As anyone can see from the discussion we’ve had on this thread, elections are incredibly important as they have consequences such as judicial appointments. A justice on SCOTUS can affect our laws for decades.
Elana Kagan is unfit to be an associate Justice - ethically and morally unfit. She committed a crime while in the Clinton administration and Clinton’s DOJ did nothing about it. She is no more fit to sit on the Supreme Court than Abe Fortas or Harriet Miers. More to come - must go cook supper.
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.