Posted on 08/28/2009 11:17:40 AM PDT by kellynla
Are "anchor babies" eligible at 35 to be POTUS?
anchor baby = us citizen, red, white, & blue.
The TERRY ANDERSON SHOW..
Terry is Articulating the Popular Rage!
Sundays - 12-1 AM EDT, 11-12 PM CDT, 10-11 PM MDT, 9-10 PM PDT
KRLA - 870 AM - Los Angeles — KDWN - 720 - Las Vegas — KFNX - 1100 - Phoenix
“Stupid People of America !!!
If You Ain’t Mad, You Ain’t Payin’ Attention!”
Call-In Number - (866) 870-5752
The Most Horriblest Clown of the Week for Terry’s August 23, 2009 Show......
San Francisco County Supervisor David Campos..He supports sanctuary for criminal invaders
Which illegal alien enabling traitor will be crowned the clown this week ???
Don’t miss Terry’s August 30th show...
Terry says that the illegal aliens should not be in the USA...
Whatcha think about that ??? Agree ??? Disagree ???
Want to take a few home to your house and feed and educate them yourself ???
Call Terry LIVE on Sunday 9-10 PM PST at (866) 870-5752
LIVE stream at http://krla870.townhall.com/
http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/index.php?cmd=list
8 USC
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
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: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States
Big fat NO...
Theyre not natural born citizens...
With no authority to make sure the selection or president is between ELIGIBLE candidates, it appears, like ignored immigration laws, you are correct. Judges appointed to make sure things like this don't happen ever appear to be either "on the take," "fearful for their lives or the lives of their family members" or "don't give a rat's rump who fills the job".
Both parents have to be americans!
In Birther mythology, yes. Per the Constitution, no.
Luke ‘’The Drifter’’ says:
“We Americans got so tired of being thought of as dumbasses by the
rest of the world that we went to the polls last November and removed all doubt.”
Yes. They are natural-born, not naturalized.
A bad birth certificate can take care of the age 35 problem.
Thanks for that.
Glad you are here to keep the “perry mason” types in line. LOL
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: '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.'
sigh,,,, anchor babies were outlawed by the 1996 immigration reform.
Custody follows the parents so when the illegal alien parents are deported the us citizen child goes with them but is able to return at 18. The children of that citizen are only citizens by birth IF the citizen has lived in the USA for 10 years continuously.
There are no more anchor babies under the law.
I think you must mean birthright citizenship.
The current POTUS trumps your big fat NO and thus if you can finesse whatever vetting process exists (and apparently not much of one does exist) you’re in.
I just thought I would throw the question out there since there seems to be disagreement on the issue.
BTW, if you have a link on that info I would appreciate it.
If one is born a citizen, then one is a natural born citizen.
There are only two classifications of citizenship: those born to it and those who obtain it (i.e. naturalization).
It doesn’t seem to matter any more. If you think it does, then you are a right-wing radical kook. Lord forbid we respect the Constitution...
Unfortunately, you're substituting how you think the law should behave, in place of how the law actually behaves.
Since Marbury, the court has been given (or has just taken) increasing liberty in defining or redefining what specific words or statements mean in practical application. As an example, "arms", as in the "right to keep and bear", is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. Certainly, legislative acts have attempted to - in a peripheral or incidental way - define what "arms" actually means. SCOTUS, when hearing challenges to those laws and definitions, can either expand, narrow or reaffirm what's been legislated. The same holds true here.
Why is the dissent in Ark probative for a subsequent court, especially if Ark is such a narrow ruling? Contemporary courts, when deciding cases, often time rely on prior court decisions to help guide or frame their opinions on the contemporary matter at hand. And, in an attempt to better understand the practical application of a prior decision, the court will look at the dissenting opinion to determine what the case was about, in it's entirety. You're right insomuch that Ark was a fairly narrow ruling, but sometimes even the most narrow of rulings can have profound and widespread ramifications. One need look no further than Marbury v. Madison to see this an example of this. That decision was about a judicial appointment, but the practical application of that case as a future precedent was indescribably more important than just a judicial appointment.
More directly to your statement - "SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to define...", I'm afraid as a practical matter, that just isn't accurate. If it was accurate, we wouldn't have had an expansion of the definition of "privacy" to include the murder of unborn children - as is the case in Roe v. Wade.
To be clear, I don't believe that the framers intended "natural born" to include children of parents that aren't citizens. Then again, I don't think that the framers intended that the Fourth Amendment be a license for a mother to murder her unborn children, but that's what it's become.
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.