Posted on 12/08/2006 3:20:30 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
Go ahead, but understand that to prevent this child from becoming a citizen, you'll have to repeal the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
No you'd just have to apply it as it is written and as it was intended. Anchor babies are a myth.
What a tired argument. That has been proven wrong many times over. What is your attachment to illegals?
If an American has a baby while visiting Mexico, does that mean the baby is automatically a Mexican citizen? Inquiring minds want to know.
That's what I said, the impetus for the 14th amendment was to deal with native americans, I didn't say it made them citizens, they were the subject of debate.
Look, you don't have to convince me, you have to convince the US Supreme Court, which has consistently (at least as far back as the 1880s) ruled otherwise.
What is your attachment to illegals?
You're bating me now? Sheesh. I have no attachment to illegals, I'm just telling you what the law says.
If this is upheld, any child born on a boat within 200 miles of our coast is also US born.
Actually, yes, a baby born to Americans in Mexico has a legal claim to Mexican citizenship (in addition to American citizenship). Not all countries recognize citizenship Jus soli -- i.e. by place of birth -- but Mexico and the United States both do.
A clue
It would be very difficult to do that since some vital institutions are involved, but it could be amended.
You're misunderstanding me. The purpose of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was to make the children of immigrants and slaves automatically United States citizens while excluding only select groups (including Indians living on reservations, as well as the children of diplomats and foreign belligerents). As the United States is not presently at war with Mexico, the children of Mexican nationals in United States territory are American citizens.
If being invaded by millions of people from a foreign country doesn't constitute war what does?
Ok, you've convinced me. Now call up Speaker of the House-designee Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader-designee Harry Reid, get them to introduce Articles of War against Mexico, and maybe you'll be able to keep this child from obtaining United States citizenship.
Sounds good to me. Lord knows the quisling Bush won't do it.
Uh NO, Jacob Howard said the purpose was to settle "the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Howard said the citizenship clause was merely declaratory of national law, which was only children born to parents not owing alligence to the United States, were US citizens.
Howard went on to say that subject to the jurisdiction was to be construed "imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."
Paul Madison says:
"When one is said to be subject to some nations jurisdiction, this means they are considered as a citizen of that nation. When an alien visits or sneaks into this country they are only under the jurisdiction of local laws and ordinances, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they are not subjects of the nation.
"Consider also that the United States could bar citizens from, say, entering Mexico, but cannot banish an Mexican national from returning to Mexico because such a person is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in its exercise of sovereignty over citizens of the United States. "
>You don't have to like that from a policy standpoint, but it's settled law.
Oh? care to point to were this law was settled? You can't point to Kim Ark ruling because that never touched birthright citizenship, and national law continued after Ark to treat children born to aliens as simply alien up to the the 1960's.
So I'd like to see this so-called settled law you speak of.
Sound like one of those "did the ball break the plane of the goal line" situations.
< }B^)
Not to make this a Mexican/American thing, but isn't a plane considered as part of the country in which it is based? (sort of akin to an embassy/consulate?).
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.