Posted on 09/22/2011 7:17:05 AM PDT by montag813
by John Hill
Stand With Arizona
We have covered the disgraceful sham of "anchor babies" and birthright citizenship for a long time - illegal aliens using America's current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to obtain citizenship for their illegal babies - just by getting inside our borders prior to the birth.
You have seen the Mexican women who come across the Rio Grande in labor, to have babies in Texas hospitals. Like this woman, who did just that, failed to pay her hospital bill, and just "doesn't understand the anger" of Americans at her willful disregard for our laws or her personal responsiblities...
Then we showed you a private home in L.A., converted to a birthing center where Chinese women are brought in at 8- or 9-months pregnant, to give birth to "U.S. Citizens" - so-called "birth tourism" - in case they one day need to mooch off American welfare.
Now comes a case that demonstrates more than any before it, the abject folly of providing citizenship to the offspring of these international grifters. A woman who flew 9 months pregnant - from the Philippines, and who admits she wanted to give birth in America so her child would be given U.S. Citizenship, instead had her baby in-flight. It appears he was born in international airspace. But this woman claims that if she had instead given birth at her first scheduled stop of San Franscisco, that the baby would have been born in a hospital there, and thus should be considered a "citizen" of the U.S.
Here is one report where the Fox Boston staff discuss most of the details of this farce...
EXCERPT...READ THE REST HERE
the author is an illiterate.
anchor babies and birthright citizenship are to 100% seperate issues.
anchor babies were done away in the 1996 immigration reform. custody follows the parents. Thus when mommy and dady are deported the baby/child citizen or not citizen GOES WITH THE PARENTS. end of story. The citizen may come back at 18 but keep in mind, unless the citizen has lived in the USA for 10 years, their children DO NOT get birthright citizenship. see http://www.uscis.gov
Birthright citizenship derived from an illegal CRIMINAL act is a 100% seperate issue.
You are wrong. ALL children born in the U.S. get birthright citizenship. Period. The Congress must alter the law to define what "jurisdiction" means. That's what I glean from the author. Illiterate? I don't think that epithet is deserved.
There is no airborne anchor baby in this case. The US did not sign the governing treaty. The plane was in international airspace and it was not a US-flagged carrier (not that it would have made a difference). The child is a citizen of the Philippines.
I have seen in discussions of the 14th amendment(which is used as justification for anchor babies)that debate at the time of the passing of the amendment specifically addressed the concern of anchor babies. This discussion on the floor of Congress assured the people of the United States that children born of foreign citizens would not be allowed US citizenship.
More specifically the citizenship of a child born in the US was to be to the country which the parents are under jurisdiction at the time of birth.
In other words a Mexican or other nationality dropping a baby on US soil is a citizen of the parent's country.
Otherwise all children born to diplomats, ambassadors, visiting military,or others would be US citizens at birth.
If other countries laws were interpreted as ours, all children born to military overseas would be citizens of the country in which the parent was deployed at the time of birth.
No matter how sympathetic we are for the child, who through no fault of their own has been here all their lives, we should not feel obligated to welcome the parents in as potential citizens. They are still illegal aliens. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant (the word immigrant by definition denote legality).
Although the child has attended school,received other benefits such as food stamps, aid for dependent children, school lunches and breakfast etc., why should we then feel obligated to continue this support?
I have no real problems with legal immigrants. My major concern at this time are the illegals from other countries, who intend harm to our Republic. Seal the borders first, then move out all who are not here legally, no matter what country they came from.
They can then apply for entry, and if they have not committed an illegal act while they were in the US, then give them a green card that expires when their child becomes an adult.
If you must accept the adult children born of illegals, then ship the parents back to whatever country they came from, but never ever use the child's status as a reason for legal entry of the parents(anchor baby). They have already committed an illegal act by coming across our borders without permission.
I have a friend in a NATO country who cannot get a visa to visit the US, because he doesn't own a home, car, etc. Our government is concerned that he might stay. Yet we allow hundreds of thousands to come across our border, stay here illegally, and demand we subsidize their livelihood.
I have seen in discussions of the 14th amendment(which is used as justification for anchor babies)that debate at the time of the passing of the amendment specifically addressed the concern of anchor babies. This discussion on the floor of Congress assured the people of the United States that children born of foreign citizens would not be allowed US citizenship.
More specifically the citizenship of a child born in the US was to be to the country which the parents are under jurisdiction at the time of birth.
In other words a Mexican or other nationality dropping a baby on US soil is a citizen of the parent's country.
Otherwise all children born to diplomats, ambassadors, visiting military,or others would be US citizens at birth.
If other countries laws were interpreted as ours, all children born to military overseas would be citizens of the country in which the parent was deployed at the time of birth.
No matter how sympathetic we are for the child, who through no fault of their own has been here all their lives, we should not feel obligated to welcome the parents in as potential citizens. They are still illegal aliens. There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant (the word immigrant by definition denote legality).
Although the child has attended school,received other benefits such as food stamps, aid for dependent children, school lunches and breakfast etc., why should we then feel obligated to continue this support?
I have no real problems with legal immigrants. My major concern at this time are the illegals from other countries, who intend harm to our Republic. Seal the borders first, then move out all who are not here legally, no matter what country they came from.
They can then apply for entry, and if they have not committed an illegal act while they were in the US, then give them a green card that expires when their child becomes an adult.
If you must accept the adult children born of illegals, then ship the parents back to whatever country they came from, but never ever use the child's status as a reason for legal entry of the parents(anchor baby). They have already committed an illegal act by coming across our borders without permission.
I have a friend in a NATO country who cannot get a visa to visit the US, because he doesn't own a home, car, etc. Our government is concerned that he might stay. Yet we allow hundreds of thousands to come across our border, stay here illegally, and demand we subsidize their livelihood.
I'm not sure a Congressional enactment works. "subject to the jurisdiction," in the 14th amendment, has been construed by the Supreme Court (in Wong Kim Ark) to mean everybody on the land, except diplomats and invading armies.
If the 14th amendment was modified, to the same language used in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, it would cure the problem. "people born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power ..."
Interesting map:
Dark blue represents nations with automatic jus soli laws (Source).
Note that some not in blue are functionally jus soli; for example, in the UK you're a citizen by birth if your parents are legal residents (not citizens). Australia and New Zealand are very similar to the UK. If you're born in France, you simply have to claim your citizenship when you turn 18.
It's pretty much "the norm" in the Americas...
Cost taxpayers $4.7K for the baby delivery hospital bill that she got for free that we get stuck with bill, she says “ I came here to give birth so my (currently unborn) children can have a better life”, hey, sounds just like Dick Armey’s soapbox. Definitely better hospital treatment at our expense, and she can sue for malpractice too.
Classic video direct link, she looks like Nicky Meg Whitman's ex-maid:
Anchor Babies - Taxpayers Paying for Illegal Alien Births(video)
Funny how the Republican candidates dont get asked about their position on this.
Actually some do. My Dad was in the Air Force stationed in West Germany when I was born (1964, both folks are American citizens). I had dual citizenship until I was 18. I then had to make a decision about which country I wanted to remain a citizen. The unchosen citizenship was then dropped.
Don’t worry the Filipina chick will go to Boston where all the bleeding hearts will listen to her sob story and bingo ‘Francis’ will be a citizen in no time.
And there is nil chance enough of Congress could be convinced to have the 14th Amendment to the Constitution abrogated.
Republicans killed the issue when they agreed with liberals that the 14th amendment would have to be repealed to stop the birth-right policy for illegals. RINO Sen Graham-nesty betrayed us by his public statements on the issue.
The US DOES NOT give birth-right citizenship to born in USA babies of foreign diplomats and they do not have to give it to illegals. This was a 1980s new policy. This is why they are called the 'stupid' party.
Ping!
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.