commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”
So every anchor baby also owes allegiance to Mexico, Iran, Korean, so according to this should NOT be an American citizen?
Do I understand this right?
Cuz I personally know over 100 anchor babies who laugh at how stupid we are and how easy it is to bring 25 relatives to the USA (from my charity work in LA if you must know) ............
I understand that at the turn of the last century, an aspiring American immigrant would need, among other things, an American "sponsor" (relative or friend who could vouch for his/her character and support him/her), good health, no criminal record, and a desire to get naturalized as soon as possible.
commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
So every anchor baby also owes allegiance to Mexico, Iran, Korean, so according to this should NOT be an American citizen?
Do I understand this right?
Cuz I personally know over 100 anchor babies who laugh at how stupid we are and how easy it is to bring 25 relatives to the USA (from my charity work in LA if you must know) ............
----------------------------------------------
The comment by the "father" of the 14th Amendment was in regards to "natural born citizen" specifically. He, Bingham, clearly reiterates Vattel's definition the framers knew and used for the requirement in the Constitution. Born in country, to citizen parentS (and thus parents who do not owe allegiance to a foreign country...either parent). No rebuttal was recorded on that point.
Therefore, the framers of the 14th Amendment CLEARLY would not consider an anchor baby as being a "Natural Born Citizen."
Regarding them being a "citizen", it's equally clear the 14th Amendment framers would not have intended for them (anchor baby's) to be granted "citizenship" either (let alone be considered a natural born citizen).
"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 United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. 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. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
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. [Edit: Notice how Senator Howard mentions "natural law?" Guess who wrote about natural law. Vattel. Guess who reitterated Vattel's NBC defintion. Bingham, the father of the 14th. THEY ALL KNEW VATTEL & his NBC definition as did the framers!] This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens [Edit: LIKE ANCHOR BABY's], 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. "
Continued:
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
The author's of the 14th CLEARLY never intended for the Amendment to apply to FOREIGN mother's here ILLEGALLY to deliver their baby (who is here ILLEGALLY as well) on American soil. It's all a shame.
Just like this anchor baby citizenship crap, Barry (assuming Sr. was his legal father at birth) could never be a natural born citizen as know and intended by the framers. With his born with FOREIGN citizenship and his FOREIGN father, the framers would consider him a usurper of the office. You see, if one (or both) of your parents are foreigners, you (the child) can, and most often do, inherit by birthright their FOREIGN citizenship as well. That born child now has multiple allegiances and multiple citizenship's AT birth. No chance they could be considered a "natural born" citizen of the U.S.
So here, surrounding the framers of the 14th Amendment, we can see two VERY important discussions:
1. They knew EXACTLY what the framers definition for Natural Born Citizen was (from Vattel: born in country, to citizen parents (who therefore don't owe alligience to a foreign country). Furthermore, clearly, they never intended anchor baby's to be considered "natural born" citizens.
and
2. They clearly didn't intend for someone here ILLEGALLY with zero allegiance or attachment to this country to be able to give birth here and have that (foreign) child then be granted 14th Amendment citizenship.
So, according to those who created the 14th Amendment, anchor babies would not (& should not) be considered "citizens" (let alone, "natural born" citizens).
These issues are precisely why more American's MUST read and understand their history else we suffer from the progressive/socialist/communist perversions of OUR Constitution!