Posted on 04/06/2006 7:47:53 PM PDT by Porterville
Another thing that pisses me off is this notion of the "anchor baby"
I was listening to Mike Church (on Sirus 144) a couple of days ago and he read this on air.
But if you didn't have this, you could a permanent underclass of non-citizen illegals. With the current system, at least the second or third generation are citizens.
I think that one group who is going to take the brunt of this when all heck breaks loose, is legal Americans of hispanic descent, because not everyone is going to be very discriminating in who they blame. And that's a crying shame.
God Bless you.
susie
Actually, if you didn't have this you would not have had nearly so many jump the border to have their babies. I remember back in the 80s, living in W. TX. I had a friend who was a labor and delivery nurse at our local hospital (which had a super L & D dept). She told me back THEN that I would be surprised how many Mexican woman showed up at the hospital straight from Mexico to have their American babies. She indicated that most of them then returned home. But, they had their American baby so they could come back later. This was my very first exposure to the problem.
susie
As sympathetic as I am to the author's proposition, he is simply wrong. The key phrase is "subject to the jurisdicition of the United States." This means just what it says. Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. In fact, the United States should prosecute them and send them home (as opposed to foreign ambassadors who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and who can only be asked to leave). No, the authors of the 14th amendent, perhaps sadly, did open the door to the "anchor baby" concept. But in their defense, they probably could not have imagined the cravenness of today's politicians who are willfully allowing millions of illegal aliens to cross our borders unchallenged.
I'm come to the conclusion that instead of trying to change the Constitution, it is better to simply enforce the border.
By entering the country illegally, they are declaring that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If they conceded the jurisdiction of the United States, they would not enter the country illegally. The entrance itself does not adhere to the jurisdiction of the United States and thus no dependent action, such as giving birth to a child, can rightfully claim the protection of that jurisdiction.
It’s also equally important to understand that there is only one path for which an alien can come under the jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of citizenship: Through the process of naturalization that, among other things, requires a person to renounce all allegiance to their country of origin. The Fourteenth Amendment framers did not recognize as a matter of law that an alien giving birth to a child within the limits United States, is by itself, an act of naturalization on the part of the mother. This is because the naturalization of aliens is a process of rules set forth in naturalization laws, and not something an individual can accomplish through their own acts outside of these rules of law.Who wants to try and deny that?The principle behind birthright is the same as it was before and after the adoption of the 14th amendment: Only a citizen can make a citizen through the process of childbirth. Any other avenue to citizenship requires an act of naturalization under naturalization laws or perhaps, by treaty.
Your alleged underclass of non-citizen illegals would be substantially less than the (estimated) 11 million illegals if the immigration laws were properly and totally enforced.
Yes there would be a permanent underclass. But it can be limited because the law was properly enforced until the early 1980's and the illegal population did not swell until after some government officials started selecting which laws they wanted to enforce.
We do not need fradulent citizens. Citizenship is not a birthright. Citizenship is not a guaranteed right according to the checks and balances that constitute the law. Enforce the law and these questions are moot.
Who wants to try and deny that?
-----
No one in their right mind. The "anchor baby" concept is sick, twisted, and totally unfair to REAL American citizens. This whole issue shows itself as totally unfair to real citizens -- thanks to Washington, DC, our dysfunctional politically-driven ex-government.
If that is true then why did Title XXX make a distinction between residing in the U.S. AND jurisdiction of the U.S.? If we take your hairbrain analysis seriously there would be no need because simply residing in the U.S. puts you under the jurisdiction of the U.S.!!
bump
We have to go after the businesses; enforce current laws; and define the myths so they are no longer myth.
I'm sorry, but your argument is not logical. You can make the argument that through their lawlessness they might *think* they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they most certainly are. If they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, then we cannot deport them.
I think the phrase applies more to foreign diplomats and the like, who are not subject to American laws. That the illegals flaunt American laws does not mean they are not subject to them.
As much as I don't like the concept of an anchor baby, I believe they are Consitutional. That's easily remedied, though.
Damn Skippy! If they did not have benefits and employment they would not come here.
Who wants to try and deny that?
About a hundred years of tradition that says otherwise and a whole lot of citizens who were born while their parents weren't citizens.
In fact, my father's parents entered the country legally and eventually obtained citizenship, but I'm not sure they had at the time he was born. If they weren't, does that mean my father is not a citizen?
The word "subject" means "to be accountable to". An illegal alien is acting outside the accountability of our laws. Just as a person who stole a winning lottery ticket would not only be punished for the theft but not be allowed to reap the winnings, an action that denies the accountability of our laws cannot rightly lead to acquisition of a benefit from those laws. The deliberate evasion of subjection to our laws cannot be a basis for claiming such subjection for the purposes of gaining citizenship.
Jurisdiction is not a matter of the consent or intent of the subject, but rather that of the sovereign power.
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.