Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: muawiyah

The “anchor babies” are declared citizens through action of an erroneous interpretation of law. That same State Department letting in the Mexicans for so many years had earlier administered the law far differently.
BTW, the “agencies of government” do not rule from the Constitution ~ just the statutes and court decisions, so the 14th Amendment is not involved in any of this


The 14th Amendment is precisely the reason why anchor babies are US Citizens at birth: “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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The landmark US Supreme Court testing the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark from 1898. In a 6-2 decision the Supreme Court held that the Chinese immigrant Wong Kim Ark was a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. A child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.


194 posted on 08/03/2009 8:56:04 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies ]


To: jamese777
There you hit it on the head ~ "permanant residence" ~ Obama's father was a foreign student here under a student visa. He was NOT a permanent resident, nor did he intend to be one. In fact, he wanted to be a big cheese in Kenya, returned there, and did well (compared to others, although not as well as he wanted to do). Man was killed in an auto accident in an age when only the richest and most powerful people in African had an opportunity to do so.

Using that Supreme Court decision as our guide, it's pretty obvious that Obama, as his father's son, had no claim to American citizenship.

195 posted on 08/03/2009 9:15:21 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies ]

To: jamese777
Just a further thought on that ruling. If we look real closely at the segment that goes: "but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States," and simply ask ourselves, "what if they went home" we can see that they did not really have a "permanent domicile and residence here" and therefore their kids no longer qualify for citizenship.

Families that send grandma back to live with the relatives in the old country could really be in some trouble couldn't they?

213 posted on 08/03/2009 10:24:25 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies ]

To: jamese777; muawiyah; kellynla
The landmark US Supreme Court testing the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark from 1898. In a 6-2 decision the Supreme Court held that the Chinese immigrant Wong Kim Ark was a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. A child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

But they were legal residents of the US. SCOTUS has never ruled on whether the 14th amendment citizenship applies to the children of illegal aliens born in the US.

293 posted on 08/04/2009 9:08:46 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson