And thus the origin of "The Anchor Baby" problem.
This was, clearly, never meant to be 'The Anchor Baby Amendment'.
You're going to have to offer more proof than a bare assertion. Perhaps you can post the relevant statements of legislative intent--say, the statements of the drafters of the 14th Amendment?
This was meant to apply to LEGAL IMMIGRANTS to this country that had been granted residency in a state.
And those persons BORN here.
If a woman walks past the signs that say U.S. Border and under the wire and fences already there, then lays down on a blanket and has a baby, that doesn't make her a LEGAL resident of any state. This Amendment doesn't apply to her and her baby.
Sorry, kiddo--it applies to the baby, and by extension to the mother, unless you care to establish lots of orphanages.. The baby was born within the territory of the United States, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States--the baby is a US citizen.
This is more liberal 'flim-flam'.
Nope. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is the only part that is relatively easy to understand.
Put it in front of the Supreme Court, now. A majority will decide against this 'Anchor Baby' nonsense.
Let's see, we have Stevens, Breyer, Bader-Ginsburg, and David Souter on the liberal side. We have Rehnquist who bounces either way. O'Connor is a little liberal, but she isn't the sort to make stuff up out of whole cloth, she'll probably go with the language of the 14th as written. Scalia and Thomas will also
We have here a case where the liberals will like the outcome, and the conservatives will be forced to hold their nose and vote with the liberals because of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. My estimate: with the current court, it will go 9-0 against you, with several opinions ranging from Breyer and Bader-Ginsburg waxing eloquent about slavery, and Scalia and Thomas saying "look, if you didn't want it to SAY that, then you shouldn't have WRITTEN and PASSED that."
Be careful what you ask for. You may very well get it.
BTW, this is why Constitutional Amendments need to be written VERY carefully. We have a time bomb waiting inside the 25th Amendment because of similarly poor writing.
The word 'and' in legal documents means AND, not OR. "...and of the state wherein they reside.", no LEGAL RESIDENCY, no citizenship.
Your take on the Supreme Court's view is academic, though. What do we lose by running it past them to see if you've guessed correctly? Nothing, the ILLEGAL ALIENS are already getting away with this liberal 'flim-flam'.
I, myself, don't believe this 'Anchor Baby' scam will pass the majority's scrutiny.
I believe that the majority of the Supreme Court will find it unfair that someone can use a scam like this to leapfrog ahead of others that have abided by our laws and waited in line for years for a chance to immigrate, LEGALLY.