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

To: Tublecane
They are not because of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, which does not apply to the children of illegals.

The original crafters were wary of this and their intent was that "anchor babies" were not citizens under the 14th (as their parents were not legally citizens subject to the jurisdiction of the state where the kid was born). It has been misinterpreted for years.

25 posted on 04/28/2010 1:58:08 PM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Liberal Logic: Mandatory health insurance is constitutional - enforcing immigration law is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: IYAS9YAS

“The original crafters were wary of this and their intent was that ‘anchor babies’ were not citizens under the 14th”

If that was their intent, it would have been pretty easy to exclude anchor babies. That they didn’t is their mistake, and they have to pay for it.

“(as their parents were not legally citizens subject to the jurisdiction of the state where the kid was born)”

First of all, the 14th amendment says nothing about having to be subject to a state’s jurisdiction. It says they must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Secondly, if they’re not subject to state jurisdiction, please explain to me why it is that states can put illegals in jail, as they obviously do (not for being illegal, very often, but for other things).

“It has been misinterpreted for years”

Courts misinterpret a lot of things, but in this case they’re only going by the language, which is pretty clear.


37 posted on 04/28/2010 2:10:17 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | 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