Pull Up Our Anchors To Discourage Illegal Immigration

The Bulletin [Philadelphia, PA] ^ | July 29, 2008 | By: Herb Denenberg

[chris_bdba]

Congess needs to be made to vote upon this. Since the outcry of so many during the immigration bill last year, I’d think anyone foolish enough to vote in favor of the illegals would soon find themselves out of Congress. I know it will never happen but a girl can dream!

[tumblindice]

“but not retroactively”
Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional, so any amendment declaring that the 14th is not (and was never intended to be) an “anchor baby” law would have to be proactive.

[taxcontrol]

I have served both in the military and in federal service and I can tell you hands down, that the federal service makes special allowances for those with disabilities. For example, at the hospital where I worked one of the bio-medical maintenance techs was paraplegic and confined to a wheelchair. However, the hospital created a special work bench for him so he could work.

[TheThinker]

How about putting the anchor baby issue on the ballot in November?

[Lurker]

How about putting the anchor baby issue on the ballot in November?

It already is.

L

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Note, the amendment's language has two components: first-born or naturalized and second subject to the jurisdiction. Those who believe having been born in the U.S. creates an automatic ticket for citizenship ignore the second component - subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If being born were enough to confer citizenship that would mean the subject-to-jurisdiction language was superfluous. If the Framers of the 14th amendment had wanted birth alone to confer citizenship, they would have simply written all those born in the U.S. or naturalized are citizens. But they did not, instead they developed a double-barreled definition.

The reason for the two parts is to make sure that a foreign ambassador, living in this country who had exclusive loyalty to a foreign power, and who had a child while stationed here, would not have a child who was an American Citizen. Also if by chance foreign power ever invaded America and while troops were occupying parts of our Country their children born on American Territory would not be citizens either. That is the common law understanding that was codified by the two parts in the Amendment.

One U.S. Supreme Court decision holds that children of legal, resident aliens are entitled to citizenship. But the justice writing the majority opinion (in a 5-4 decision) used subject and citizen interchangeably, and failed to recognize the distinction between feudal law and monarchy on the one hand and constitutional republicanism on the other. The dissent in a strong opinion said the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence repealed the idea of birthright subjectship.

Read the decision and see that this mischarcterises it. The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is consistent with common law and has been accepted for so long that at best only one of our current Justices would consider allowing Congress to redefine the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to not include the children of any alien who maintains a permanent residence in this country. Permanent residence would be the same as the residency requirements for a citizen to be able to vote in the local jurisdiction. Now the children of a temporary visitor or a mother who crosses the border just to have a child born in this country might be forbidden citizenship.

Here is the Referred to case on citizenship.
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649