Posted on 09/29/2007 7:47:05 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
The Constitution is simple, short and easy to read. There is no excuse for any reporter to write about it, without reading it. The latest example is an article about anchor babies in the Orlando Sentinel today (29 September) by Jim Stratton.
The article concerns a comment about anchor babies by Fred Thompson, Republican candidate for President. If you haven’t followed the illegal immigration debate, anchor babies are children born on US soil of illegal immigrant parents. The babies get citizenship. Then, the provisions for “reuniting families” kick in, and the baby assists the parents in becoming legal.
It is a serious problem. Even illegals who cannot read a word of English, are aware of the law. Mexican women who are eight months pregnant are dying every month in the deserts on the border, trying to have their child here as “an American.”
Thompson’s comment on the automatic citizenship was, “I think that law was created at another time and place for valid reasons, [and] needs to be revisited.” The reporter’s gloss on Thompson’s comment, was “Citizenship by birth has been prescribed by the Constitution since 1868 -- and upheld for 109 years by the Supreme Court....”
The reporter was either incompetent or dishonest. Here’s what the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says in its first sentence: “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.” That’s the legal basis for anchor babies.
Those who say anchor babies are guaranteed by the Constitution, and cannot be eliminated without an amendment, jump right over the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Here’s an example to explain that, applied to children.
An Australian diplomat and his wife (or her husband) are serving in the United States. She has a child, born in a US hospital. Is that child an American? Absolutely not. Under the laws of the US, a child born of a diplomatic couple is a citizen of their nation, not ours, just as the embassies themselves are defined as territory of the foreign nations, not of the US.
What is the connection between the diplomatic child and the child of an illegal alien from whatever country, though most likely from Mexico? Here’s the last sentence of the 14th Amendment, a provision which is common to many amendments: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Based on the plain language of the Constitution, Congress is given the power in the 14th Amendment itself to pass “appropriate” legislation. Therefore, Congress could pass a law that says, “For the purpose of citizenship of them or their children, aliens who are not in the US legally, or not here for the purpose of obtaining citizenship are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US as stated in the 14th Amendment.”
Such a law would be legal, because the Constitution permits it. It would mean a child born in a Tucson, or San Diego, or Laredo hospital of Mexican parents, would be a Mexican child. The anchor baby problem would be over. No more pregnant women would die in deserts of the Southwest, trying to get to a US hospital to have their “American” child.
Contrary to what Jim Stratton asserts as fact, this Amendment ratified in 1868 provides for this very solution, if Congress chooses to solve the problem by law. His assertion that the Supreme Court has held to this result is equally ignorant. The case he refers to, but doesn’t name, concerned the child of two aliens who were in the US legally, not illegally.
I am not picking on Jim Stratton and the Orlando Sentinel. The ignorance they display on this issue is common to most of the local and national reporters who talk about anchor babies. Almost all of them assume, and state, that the problem is built into the Constitution and cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment. All of them are either dishonest, because they’ve read the Constitution, and know the legislative power is given to Congress. Or, more likely, they are merely ignorant. They haven’t read the Constitution; they assume because many other reporters have said this, it must be true. Therefore, they don’t look it up.
This is not the first instance, nor the last, of the American press being a copraphage, consuming its own output.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu He lives in the 11th District of North Carolina.
- 30 -
SECTION 1. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED.
In the exercise of its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this Act to a mother who is neither a citizen or national of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a citizen or national of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a citizen or national, or is entitled upon application to become a citizen or national of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of birth in the United States.
I think the text under the jurisdiction is very clear. Can you draft a foreign national into the US military? Can you compel a foreign national to serve on jury duty? No, you can't, because they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
“Contrary to what Jim Stratton asserts as fact, this Amendment ratified in 1868 provides for this very solution, if Congress chooses to solve the problem by law. His assertion that the Supreme Court has held to this result is equally ignorant. The case he refers to, but doesn’t name, concerned the child of two aliens who were in the US legally, not illegally.”
BUMP
That is EXACTLY correct!. There are volumes of evidence in what is NOT done or said regarding the “AB” claim. And the entire claim that the 14th Amendment infers American Citizenship on "AB's" was invalidated by a glairing lack of comment by the Supreme Court on one hand and what they actually DID say on the other!
And YES they did comment directly on “children born in the u.S. of illegal alien parents.”
OK, here it is. The One Worlders and Globalists all screech abut the 14th Amendment. "Equal Protection" is the chant. But does the SC decisions say what they think? NO! The 14th Amendment does in some instances provide "equal protection" but does it convey United States Citizenship? Noooooo! The SC actually stated the exact opposite. And it is not some vague reference, it addressed the issue of "Children born in this country to illegal alien parents,"
Here we go (again)...
This is the actual text of their commentary on the actual meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which the libs all wanna scream about but the SC commentary is what they never talk about.
It is in regards to the 14th amendment case which examined the issue of equal protection. Specifically, whether the State of Texas can legally withhold funds to schools to cover the extra costs of education illegal alien children born outside of the united states (illegals) and children of illegal aliens born in the united States, ie, anchor babies .
If one actually reads the entirety of the decision of the Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 the question of "birthright NON-citizenship" ie, 14th Amendment is right there.
The line the AB's always want to quote is “...subject to the jurisdiction thereof" Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202
Bad news for AB's, OBL's and America Haters, what they think is there just does not exist. It gets worse for them because what does exist indicates the exact opposite, AB's are NOT u.S. citizens.
Ok, let's just have a good look here...
The court addressed (and this is important) two classes of children in school. Namely, the children of illegal aliens that were born OUTSIDE of the u.S. and children of illegal aliens that were born INSIDE of the u.S.
" The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" — namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. "
Sorry, but the SC is saying nothing about the issue of are they or are they not u.S citizens. It refers to the Supreme Court of the United States striking down a State of Texas statute denying funding for education to children OF illegal aliens. It does NOT say they are citizens.
In fact, it does state the following...
" To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation. 8 U.S.C. 1251, 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). But there is no assurance that a child subject to deportation will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in this country, or even to become a citizen. See, e. g., 8 U.S.C. 1252, 1253(h), 1254 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV)."
Clearly, these foreign born children are NOT CITIZENS.
OK here is the text you will not see them speak of...
Then the issue of domestic born children is addressed.
" Children born in this country to illegal alien parents, including some of appellee’s siblings, (thus including them in the definition of and as “appellees”) are not excluded from the Texas schools. Nor does Texas discriminate against appellees because of their Mexican origin or citizenship."
This is NOT saying that Children born in this country to illegal alien parents are U.S. citizens! It is clearly saying that they are MEXICAN CITIZENS. And here is how it is saying it.
Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 refers ONLY to equal protection clause in the 14th amendment providing protection against denial of funds to schools for the education of illegal alien children. Nowhere in the SC ruling does it state that anchor babies are US citizens. It actually states otherwise.
Children born in this country to illegal alien parents, including some of appellees' >>> siblings,<<< (thus including them as “appellees”) are not excluded from the Texas schools. Nor does Texas discriminate against appellees because of their Mexican origin or citizenship.
In other words the appellee’s children born in this country (siblings) are also considered appellees in the case and the appellees of the case are described by the Court as Mexican citizens.
Very clear and very simple. And it has been there all along.
But the libs are really good a pushing a catch phrase and "subject to the jurisdiction" from the 14th amendment is it on this issue.
You have to actually read the commentary (that leaves out the libs) to realize that Supreme Court made no distinction in the case between children of illegal aliens that were born in mexico and children of illegal aliens that were born in the United States!!!
All the SC has to do to settle this ENTIRE dispute was simply state that according to the XYZ (14th) Amendment the children of illegal aliens born in the u.S. are citizens of the u.S., therefore this case brought by The State of Texas has no merit.
Well, guess what those Supreme Court Justices did NOT say?
I do not believe that the Supreme Court just "kinda forgot" to address that aspect of the issue in the light of the fact that they are specifically comparing illegal aliens right to protection under the 14th amendment to American Citizens right to protection under the 14th amendment. And what with what they DID say they clearly indicated that the children of illegal aliens that were born INSIDE of the u.S. are mexican citizens. Absolutely NOWHERE in the decision does it say that AB's are American Citizens.
BUMP
John / Billybob
Don’t hold your breath on Congress to do ANYTHING on this issue. As long as the Dems have control of both houses, nothing will be done. SCOTUS might do something, but that remains to be seen.
I think so. Of course states generally don't want foreigners serving on juries; but if one did, I see no reason why it couldn't make him serve.
Can you draft a foreign national into the US military?
Many foreign nationals, who were U.S. residents, have been drafted; but there's a catch. The potential draftee can claim exemption as an alien; but generally, if does that, he is barred from citizenship (there are exceptions based on treaties).
I have an idea though. If the meaning of the jurisdiction clause in the 14th amendment were affirmed by court as a bar to illegal births, using whatever arguments to get that ruling, wouldn't that automatically remove the presumption of citizenship for all time, including the past?
If that phrase never meant to confer citizenship on illegal births then no illegal birth has ever been valid.
Does that hold water?
Latest article from Congressman Billybob, seems suitable for the AFIRE ping list.
Thanks for this great post, Biily Bob
Consider this...
The US Govt does not issue birth certificates...
The individual states do that...
So states rights prevail...
Now if a state legislature just happened to pass a law about the issuance of birth certificates with the provision that foreign nationals had to apply to their own consulate for a birth certificate for children born in that state...That state would be within the guidelines etc to do so...
each state is free to determine how they will deal with legal documents pertaining to their own jurisdiction...as the illegal aliens are not subject to the states jurisdiction, they must apply to their own country’s legal structure for documentation proving the recent birth of their off-spring...
Are the parents American citizens and residents of TN? ...then the TN Vital Records agency will record the birth and issue a birth certificate...
Are the parents illegal aliens/citizens of another country?...then their own country’s consulate/embassy with havbe jurisdiction over the recordin g of the birth and issuance of a birth certificate, as the recognized and appointed representatives of their country...
The illegal aliens are encouraged to seek help and guidance from their own consulate in times of arrest etc..and this is just another legal matter that falls under the jurisdiction of that same institution...
Simple and unchallengeable...
:)
“The potential draftee can claim exemption as an alien; but generally, if does that, he is barred from citizenship (there are exceptions based on treaties).”
We dont have a draft at present, but during the Vietnam War foreign nationals who were in the US LEGALLY, with an Alien Registration Card (green card) were subject to the draft...
When a guy was drafted, he had a choice of enlisting or returning to his own country...
Refusal to serve when drafted caused the cancellation of his eligibility to stay in this country, and he had to leave...to enter as an immigrant in the future, he would have to start all over again from scratch, but this time he had his prior draft dodging record against him...
The 14th Amendment was one of those seen necessary to cover the citizenship of former slaves (1868). While it is written to cover a more blanket issue regarding citizenship, the successful termination of the Civil War is what prompted its creation.
This is a ping list promoting Immigration Enforcement and Congressional Reform.
If you wish to be added or removed from this ping list, please contact me.
Hi SCP
Thanks for the PING
:)
I thought you weren’t going to do ‘weekend pings’. ;-) (Note the smile)
BTTT
My time isn't my own on weekends, but if I can get a little time on FR and see something worthwhile, I'll ping it. Forewarned is forearmed :)
Dear Congressman Billybob.
Anchor Babies are not necessarily Birthright Citizens.
These are two very seperate issues.
The 1996 Immigration Reform Act eliminated the “Anchor Baby” that most people assume is by citizenship. The law established that custody follows the parents regadless of citizenship.
Thus the previous use of a child’s citizenship to hold custody of the parents was dead.
What followed was all sorts of attempts at hoop jumping of immigration lawyers whose business was collapesed due to the elimination of citizenship anchorage. They went to special needs which were usually very hard to establish or prove. (ie ritalin is available in other countries for ADHD diagnosed children)
The Dream Act was an attempt by senator durbin to make ALL minors in public school into anchor babies regadless of citizenship. This would have meant any illegal minor could become the anchor for serial immigration by just being in public school for two years. To add insult to injury, Senator Durbin provided such student status anchor babies could be as old as 30!
As a lawyer, I have seen where my immigration collegues were impacted by the 1996 anchor baby elimination. I have also seen their excitement at the potential return of the anchor baby.
Birth Right citizenship is a dangerous red herring to anchor babies. We have to be VERY VIGILANT that the left in congress does not do another Dream Act attempt to make anchor baby status back into law and undo the 1996 revision.
It was one enforcement law that has worked because it has been indicated when immigration lawyers lost that business.
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.