Posted on 03/25/2005 7:34:47 AM PST by kellynla
It is this reporter's opinion that it is time to re-examine abuses of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution. It states in part, "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 14th Amendment is a simple document, drafted after the Civil War to assure that newly emancipated black slaves would never be denied citizenship by the states. The drafters had no idea that, years later, the amendment would be used to make a mockery of our immigration laws. It was never intended that an illegal alien can cross the borders into our country, have a baby a few minutes later, and then the baby is automatically declared a citizen of the United States.
Automatic citizenship means that the illegal family is entitled to welfare benefits, and illegal alien parents who have children born in the United States are seldom, if ever, deported. These children are called ANCHOR BABIES: They anchor their families securely in the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at view.exacttarget.com ...
Unless your family is 100% native American, it did the same thing
Very good article.
Not so.
My paternal Great Great Grandfather arrived LEGALLY from Silesia in 1848 and VOLUNTEERED four years of his life with the 5th Wisconsin Infantry to preserve his new home and end slavery. (For which VOLUNTARY sacrifice I am still awaitng thanks from Jesse Jackson).
My maternal Grandfather arrived LEGALLY from Macedonia in 1906 (and spent his first years building railroads in the far west, when they still needed cavalry escorts as security against renegade Native Americans.)
No, there is a difference. Big difference. If they are not here legally, their offspring should not be entitled to citizenship.
"If they are not here legally, their offspring should not be entitled to citizenship."
I know of no other government that allows children of non-citizens to automatically become citizens.
Reference France and Germany as two examples.
The key to the law is that the illegals are citizens of their native land, their children under their care until their maturity, and thus have no rights apart from their parents.
In other words, they are the citizens of the land of their parents. Example, Mexicans born here get dual citizenship.
In other cases, individuals like myself, who can demonstrate ethnic background can (in some cases) apply for citizenship in the ethnic land.
It is time to deny citizenship to children of illegals. EOM!
The 14th amendment did not change anything in that regard with respect to being a US Citizen. What it did was protect US Citizens from infringment of their rights as US Citizens by the governments of the States.
The real abuse of the 14th amendment has been by the courts refusing to recognize that it intended to protect all rights of US Citizens, not just those that related to the federal government, such as the right to freedom of navigation or freedom of travel. It was intended to protect the same rights a protected from federal government infringement by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This was stated, and not challenged as to the meaning of the 14th amendment, during the debates in Congress surrounding it's passage.
To do that you would have to amend the Constitution, and not just the fourteenth amendment.
However that is not to say that you could not change the laws that give benefits to the parents of these children, nor that give the parents priority in becoming citizens, or at least legal residents, by virtue of their children being US Citizens. Therein lies the real problem, not, IMHO in the Constitution or the fourteenth amendment.
ML/NJ
Read "Alien Nation" by Peter Brimelow, which I read about 10 years ago. It's very illuminating.
It's a little late to complain about the 14th Amendment's ratification. That's nothing but an academic exercise, interesting perhaps, but fruitless. Better to correct its excesses (in immigration and in interference with federalism) through a Constitutional amendment.
I really wasn't suggesting that the 14th Amendment might be discarded. I was just providing some history that isn't exactly well known. The chances of amending the 14th amendment to "correct its excesses" are approximately the same as getting it discarded because it wasn't legally ratified; which is to say: zero.
ML/NJ
Read "Alien Nation" by Peter Brimelow, which I read about 10 years ago. It's very illuminating.
I read that too. Good book.
If my memory serves me correctly:
Funny how Japan has no mechanism for one to permanently "immigrate" there (gain citizenship).
Pretty kewel too, how New Zealand will grant you permenent citizenship if you deposit $1 million in a bank account there....kinda keeps out the riff-raff, hugh?
I beg to differ. My mother's family arrived on a Mayflower Compact ship and my father's family emigrated legally from Alsace-Lorraine in the 1890's. My grandfather was born over 15 years later.
Be careful of generalizations. They can get you into trouble.
Great! My ancestors greeted them. But a MAyflower Compact ship? Do you mean a sailing ship? I didn't realize the Mayflower was a distinct class of vessel.
...and my father's family emigrated legally from Alsace-Lorraine in the 1890's.
As did mine, but 200 years earlier. Does that mean I can stay and you have to go? And what exact law made it legal?
Why do we have the right to be here, to which we have a monument in New York Harbor, when we really mean we were here first, go away.
I have a serious problem with the current thoughts on immigration. It's based on the "Finder's Keepers" school of thought.
During the Civil War, we allowed thousands of Irish men to march off the boats in New York and Boston and straight into the Army. When they came back (if they came back) they were treated as second class citizens.
If the law says that these people who show up here, have "anchor babies" (horrible term, suggests that they are not as important as other babies), then the law allows them to stay with that baby, they too are here legally.
I can claim German citizenship because I can trace direct male lineage to a "German," even though no member of my direct lineage has lived in "Germany" for over 150 years. From what I understand, unless the Germans changed their laws, a third generation Turkish "Gastarbeiter" is not entitled to German citizenship, even though they and their parents have lived continuously in Germany.
Our law establishing automatic citizenship if born here is rooted in our Constitution. However, it is obviously antiquated. My forebearers came at a time when America sought new blood through immigration. There was a contintent to conquer and we needed, and welcomed, people from other lands.
Today, that need no longer exists. Thus, there is no longer a valid reason to continue this "incentive program."
The Mayflower Compact was a contract of sorts for transporting colonists to the New World. Contrary to popular belief, very few people arrived here on an actual ship named "Mayflower."
If the law says that these people who show up here, have "anchor babies" (horrible term, suggests that they are not as important as other babies), then the law allows them to stay with that baby, they too are here legally.
In the immortal words of Charles Dickens, "Then sir, the law is a ass." As the author points out, there is nothing in the original intent of the fourteenth amendment, an awful document that badly needs repealing anyway, meant to imply that hiking your pregnant mate across the border to drop her little bundle of joy on American soil so you can start collecting your welfare check is an acceptable circumstance.
Here it is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1620
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&.
Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."
I'm not sure I see your "contract of sorts for transporting colonists to the New World" comes into play. Point that out for me.
"I can claim German citizenship because I can trace direct male lineage to a "German," even though no member of my direct lineage has lived in "Germany" for over 150 years."
Exactly. The Volga Germans, who were deported by Stalin follwing WWII, were allowed to return to Germany following the fall the Soviet Empire. Though many did not speak German or spoke arachic German (Old Middle & Platt), they were allowed to return if they could show proof of ancestry.
Only Germans can own property in Germany (as I understand it). Anthony Quinn wanted to buy an estate in Southern Germany but was prohibited.
Compare this to U.S. where anyone can buy property.
You nor I can own property in Mexico, unless we marry properly. Compare that to U.S. policy.
Sometimes I wonder if it is our weakness that makes us great.
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.