Posted on 08/27/2015 6:39:12 PM PDT by Sean_Anthony
Anchor Babies, Common Law, The Constitution, Eliminate birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants
Once again, Donald Trump has managed to open up a robust national discussion about an issue that up to this point had been largely ignored by the political class. This time, the discussion is about so-called “birthright citizenship,” the idea that whenever a foreign national (regardless of legal status and with a very few exceptions) has a child on American soil, this child automatically becomes an American citizen from birth. This approach to citizenship has been the de facto (though not de jure) approach to the issue of “anchor babies,” the children of illegal aliens who come to the United States so that they can have their children here, thus allowing the parents to remain as well, usually helping themselves to generous American benefit monies.
Defenders of unrestricted birthright citizenship - primarily found among liberals, establishment GOP types, and the more uninformed types of libertarians—adamantly argue from the 14th amendment’s Citizenship Clause that birthright citizenship is not only legal, but is in fact constitutionally protected, and is what the 14th amendment has meant all along. They often try to buttress their arguments by appealing to English common law with its historical provisions for birthright citizenship. However, is this sort of “swim a river, fill our quiver” approach really what the 14th amendment meant? Is it really what English common law, which forms the basis for much of our own law and constitutional interpretation, historically upheld? The answer to these questions is, “No.”
The crux about which the discussion revolves is the Citizenship Clause found in the 14th amendment, Section 1,
I just love the Canada Free Press. They put some of our so-called conservative publications (National Review, etc...) to shame.
The children of American Citizens, especially Whites and Asians are the ones the left demonizes.
Authoritative and very well written—have yet to see its like in National Review.
If the 14th means all born within the borders are citizens, why use the under the jurisdiction language at all?
The jurisdiction clause excludes families of foreign diplomats, along with Indians living in tribal groups (who did not get US citizenship until the 1920s)...as opposed to individual American Indians who were living as part of the general society.
Enemies of this country, enemies from within have worked tirelessly to marginalize the U.S. constitution for decades.
The perversion of the 14th amendment is a perfect example of this attack on our founding documents.
It is insane.
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.