[CIBvet]

Are the Supremes awake to this continuing massive invasion of Illegals ?

[CIBvet]

Anchor Babies be gone PING.

[CIBvet]

Ping the Anchor Baby scam.

[CIBvet]

Ping the Anchor Baby scam outta here.

[Carry_Okie]

The correct answer to anchor babies is in the US Constitution, as written. The Slaughterhouse Cases are the first Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment on record. The author of the majority opinion is a contemporary of those who drafted and debated the Amendment. The following text is from the majority opinion (about 3/4 of the way down the linked source page):

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[group+f_slavery!3A]/doc/{@6621}/hit_headings/words=4

Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (USSC+)
Opinions
MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court

"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."

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

[CIBvet]

The Supremes are being tested with Anchor Babies.

[CIBvet]

Anchor Baby ping.

[CIBvet]

Anchor Baby scam be gone.

[Jack Black]

You say: There is nothing in the Constitution, in Federal law, or in case law anywhere that mandates U.S. citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil.

and...

the pervasive myth that the U.S. Constitution grants birthright citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil is simply that: a myth.

The US Constitution says:

Amendment XIV
(1868)
Section 1. 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You argument rests upon the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". The customary interpretation rests upon a simple reading of the entire sentence.

To claim there is NO BASIS and it is a MYTH is a big over statement, in my opinion.

In the case in question the fellow from Saudi Arabia is certainly "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by virtue of the fact that he is being tried by the US government.

I support the Constitution, even when it is inconvennient. I also would support repealing parts of the 14th Ammendment.

[Amerigomag]

Don't hold your breath.

Even under the original intent of the 14th, "under the control of", this case probably meets that threshold since the defendant's parents were legally residing in the US and therefore were "under US control".

[Reaganwuzthebest]

"[The Fourteenth Amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, 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."

As with the Second Amendment and the right of individuals to bear arms the authors of the 14th Amendment made their intentions clear in their writings. Automatic citizenship was never meant to include children of illegals. Let's see if this Supreme Court gets it.

[not_apathetic_anymore]

bookmark

[txdoda]

BUMP.....

(NO MORE ANCHOR BABIES !!)

[TheWriterInTexas]

I guess I'm seeing this from a different perspective.

Our rights are inalienable, God-given, and a component of our humanity. People possess the exact same rights whether they were born in America or Saudi Arabia. Whether the country oppresses these rights, or allows the free exercise of them, matters not - the individual, every individual in fact - still has them.

The Constitution does not grant us rights; it merely enumerates the ones we already possess by virtue of our humanity. A person cannot "receive" rights from the government or have them "taken away." The government can only prevent their exercise under certain circumstances.

This is very different from the "entitlement" programs, social "perks" and "programs," and other benefits associated with being an American citizen. However, these are NOT rights and ARE subject to withholding for non-citizens.

I wish, sometimes, that folks would be clearer on this. It would make these debates a lot easier.

Just my two cents.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Anchors, AWAY!

(I know... I know.. it's really aweigh, but I'm trying to be clever, ok? So sue me) ;0)

[lainde]

bump for reference!

[JohnnyZ]

Citizenship rights for anyone born here is one of the shining examples of what sets America apart as such a great nation.

[GATOR NAVY]

As I understand it, most countries grant citizenship not on where the child was born but on the citizenship of the parents. My children were both born in Japan but are considered U.S. citizens because I am. They are also Japanese citizens because their mother is a Japanese citizen. At the age of majority they will have to make a choice, to be U.S. or Japanese citizens.

If the Constitution can be interpreted as saying a child born in the U.S. of two non-citizen temporary resident parents is considered to be a citizen, then it's time to clarify the Constitution on that point, preferably by amendment and not a court ruling that could be ignored by a later court. A child of two non-citizen resident legal immigrants could also have the status of a legal immigrant and would obtain citizenship if the parents did.

[Junior]

If he's an American, he can be tried for treason and shot. It might give a wake up call to all those other "Americans" -- some very famous -- who side with the enemy in time of war...

[chatham]

Anchor Baby, is a rule or law that is seriously wrong.
another way to let in terrorists all grown up and trained!

[VRWC_minion]

How many here wish to here what God has to say ? If some of you folks are wondering what might motivate Bush to take such an "unconservative posistion" on illegal aliens, it might be because he is following God in the matter.

Lev19:33 " 'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. 34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.